SMALL CELL FORUM

RELEASE 7.0

scf.io

URBAN
RURAL
& REMO
TE

HOME

ENTERP
RISE

17:25

VIRTUAL

IZATIO

DOCUMENT

106.07.01

Virtualization for small cells: Overview

June 2015

Solving the HetNet puzzle

www.scf.io/

www.smallcellforum.org

SMALL CELL FORUM

RELEASE 7.0
Small Cell Forum accelerates small cell adoption to drive the
wide-scale adoption of small cells and accelerate the delivery of
integrated HetNets.
We are not a standards organization but partner with organizations that inform
and determine standards development. We are a carrier-led organization. This
means our operator members establish requirements that drive the activities
and outputs of our technical groups.
We have driven the standardization of key elements of small cell technology
including Iuh, FAPI/SCAPI, SON, the small cell services API, TR069 evolution
and the enhancement of the X2 interface.
Today our members are driving solutions that include small cell/Wi-Fi
integration, SON evolution, virtualization of the small cell layer, driving mass
adoption via multi-operator neutral host, ensuring a common approach to
service APIs to drive commercialisation and the integration of small cells into
5G standards evolution.
The Small Cell Forum Release Program has now established business cases and
market drivers for all the main use cases. This document is part of
Release 7: HetNet and SON.
Small Cell Forum defines HetNet as a multi-x environment multi-technology,
multi-domain, multi-spectrum, multi-operator and multi-vendor. It must
be able to automate the reconfiguration of its operation to deliver assured
service quality across the entire network, and flexible enough to accommodate
changing user needs, business goals and subscriber behaviors.
Small Cell Forum Release website can be found here: www.scf.io
All content in this document including links and references are for informational
purposes only and is provided as is with no warranties whatsoever including
any warranty of merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose, or any
warranty otherwise arising out of any proposal, specification, or sample.
No license, express or implied, to any intellectual property rights is granted
or intended hereby.

If you would like more information about Small Cell Forum or would
like to be included on our mailing list, please contact:
Email info@smallcellforum.org
Post Small Cell Forum, PO Box 23, GL11 5WA UK
Member Services memberservices@smallcellforum.org

scf.io

Executive summary
In June 2014, the SCFs Operator Group tasked the Forum with performing a
comprehensive analysis into the role of small cell virtualization. This overview
document describes the findings of that activity. Specifically, it is recognized that
there are key benefits and drivers towards centralization and virtualization of the small
cell RAN. These include:

improved coordination of the radio that then delivers higher performance

and efficiencies;
enhanced scalability of small cell deployments with simplified management
of the many physical small cells,
reduced cost from being able to lower peak-to-mean ratios for compute
resources,
accelerated upgrade lifecycles enabling new features to be deployed on a
centralized virtual platform; and
flexibility that enables optimum work load placement according to the
availability of compute and transport resources.

However, there is a cost associated with the benefits gained from centralization of
network functions, specifically related to the upgraded transport requirements.
Examining the two extremes indicates that the well know BBU/RRH split based on
CPRI/ORI may require costly dark fiber operated over short distances, compared with
the conventional distributed RAN based S1 solutions that can be backhauled over
nationwide low cost IP networks. Hence, in general, splitting the functionality of the
eNB at lower layers, generally increases the benefits available (in particular, from a
radio perspective), but also requires higher performance transport, which has higher
cost. The SCF have analyzed several different functional split points in-between these
two extremes, to identify a sweet spot, which has most of the benefits without
significantly increasing the transport performance requirements (and hence costs).
The main focus of the Small Cell Forums virtualization study has therefore been to
look more broadly at the virtualization topic compared with previous CPRI/ORI
approaches, to be able to quantify the costs and benefits of different functional splits
and find the optimum way to realize small cell virtualization:

[SCF159] Functional Splits and Use Cases [1]: describes the different
functional split options and their respective transport requirements
[SCF160] Capacity and Coverage [2]: describes the centralization benefits of
the different splits from an RF perspective
[SCF158] Business Case [3]: Evolves the SCFs Urban Business Case baseline
to quantify the TCO increase based on transport costs of different functional
splits
[SCF161] Network Aspects [4]: Describes the wider system impacts of small
cell virtualization
[SCF106] [5] Pulls it all together into a concise overview

Specifically, the analysis concludes that the MAC/PHY split delivers most of the
benefits of centralization, with only a small increase in transport performance and is
well aligned with the current small cell multi-vendor ecosystem approach based on the
Functional Application Platform Interface (FAPI). For those use cases that face
restrictions from a transport perspective such that the backhaul system cannot be
enhanced to support the MAC/PHY split, then the PDCP/RLC split has the potential to

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

deliver a subset of the centralization benefits but with no additional transport

requirements when compared with conventional small cell deployments.
Given such a positive analysis, the Forum is motivated to define a transportable
interface for the spit small cell, to establish a scalable ecosystem with a converged
approach to virtualization across multiple suppliers.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
3.
4.

Introduction .....................................................................1
Structure of this document ................................................... 3
Value of SC-virtualization content for different audiences ......... 3
Terminology ....................................................................... 3
Motivation for small cell virtualization study ....................5
Small cell decomposition: virtualization use cases ...........9
Coverage, capacity and performance aspects of small
cell virtualization ............................................................12
5.
Impact of base station virtualization on the end-to-end
small cell system ............................................................14
6.
Examining the business case impacts for small cell
virtualization ..................................................................17
7.
Virtualization study conclusions .....................................19
8.
Summary ........................................................................21
References ................................................................................23
Tables
Table 3-1

Latency and bandwidth characteristics associated with these

decomposition use cases. ...............................................................10

Table 3-2

Fronthaul transport options .............................................................11

Table 4-1

Mapping of enhanced co-ordination techniques to virtualization use

cases splits ...................................................................................13

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

Figures
Figure 1-1

Contrasting evolutions of the RAN architecture ................................... 1

Figure 2-1

Analysis of market adoption of RAN virtualization and small cells .......... 5

Figure 2-2

Factors identified by MNOs as the key barriers to adopting

virtualization in the access network ................................................... 6

Figure 2-3

Complex issue required to be addressed when studying small cell

virtualization .................................................................................. 8

Figure 3-1

Various possible LTE base station decompositions ............................... 9

Figure 3-2

Hosting options for large enterprise deployment of virtualized small

cell function ..................................................................................10

Figure 3-3

Hosting options for urban deployment of virtualized small cell function .11

Figure 5-1

Example PNF/VNF management co-ordination via OSS/BSS ................14

Figure 5-2

Services integration using a virtualized ESCG/ESCC that is integrated

with the centralized small cell virtualized function VNF. ......................15

Figure 5-3

Analysis estimating the CDF of transport delay associated with

existing enterprise WAN service and mapping to fronthaul types..........15

Figure 5-4

Peak-to-mean non-uniform spatial distribution ..................................16

Figure 6-1

TCO comparison of different splits....................................................18

Figure 8-1

Summary of benefits versus costs of various different split options ......22

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

1. Introduction
The virtualization of network functions is an industry transition that is impacting all
service provider segments and will therefore effect the realization of future networks
of mobile network operators. Previous SCF publications have focused on the use of
virtualization of small cell core network functions [6], translating concepts pioneered
by ETSI NFV and applying those to the Small Cell Core Network domain, representing
ETSI use case #5 (Virtualization of Mobile Core Network and IMS) [7].
Compared with this previous analysis, this document describes the output of a study
by the Small Cell Forum to address ETSI use case #6 (Virtualization of Mobile Base
Station) as applied to small cells. From a RAN perspective, virtualization and
centralization may be viewed as opposing conventional macro evolution. The shift
from 2G, through 3G to 4G has seen increasing functionality shift into the base station
and a corresponding flattening of the access architecture. The small cell industry has
leveraged this transition, enabling innovative capabilities to be delivered with small
cell access points that offer hotspot capacity and coverage.
Contrary to this evolution is a shift towards virtualization and cloud. Driven by
transitions in the datacenter, workloads are increasingly being centralized. This
transition is impacting the wireless world with the advent of cloud RAN (C-RAN). In its
purest form, this is the opposite philosophy to convectional RAN evolution (and small
cell definition), with total centralization: having a dumb radio at the edge (RRH or
Remote Radio Head) with all the signals sent back over fiber (front haul - as opposed
to the backhaul out of a base station) to a server farm that does all of signal
processing for the whole network.

Figure 1-1

Contrasting evolutions of the RAN architecture

These contrasting evolutions, illustrated in Figure 1-1, have been used to position
small cells and virtualization as an either or architectural approach. Importantly,
cloud RAN facilitates the support of advanced signal processing techniques defined in
LTE-A that rely on tighter coordination between base stations. Techniques such as
CoMP, macro-diversity or 3D MIMO rely on fast, low-level communication between
different sites; that is complex to realize with a decentralized flat RAN architecture but
trivial with a centralized approach. But Cloud RAN typically requires ideal
transport/dark-fiber support that is likely cost-prohibitive for supporting cloud RAN
capabilities in a small cell environment that has been defined to be able to be
transported over consumer grade broadband networks.
Consequently, whilst the current description of ETSI use case #6 has concentrated on
a macro-centric view of base station functions, describing techniques to leverage the
Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview
Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

common public radio interface (CPRI) base station decomposition that requires ideal
fiber transport (see www.cpri.info), the Small Cell Forum is motivated to studying
alternative approaches to decomposing small cell functionality and in particular those
approaches that are suitable for being transported over the packet switched transport
networks (with their associated bandwidth and delay/jitter characteristics)
conventionally used to support small cell deployments.
In particular, this small cell decomposition that facilitates network function
centralization and/or virtualization, can enable a range of new capabilities by the small
cell layer, including:

Enabling the definition of one single virtual cell that is supporting multiple
physical remote small cells
Supporting scalable hierarchical mobility whereby inter-small remote small
cell mobility is hidden from upper layer elements
Facilitating policy enforcement to be applied at an aggregate level, e.g.,
enabling admission control type capabilities
Enhancing the security of the small cell solution by terminating user-plane
encryption above the remote small cell
Enabling statistical multiplexing of compute resources which lowers peak-tomean ratio of the load experienced by the centralized function. This can then
be leveraged to lower footprint and/or energy consumption of the system
Facilitating the deployment of advanced radio techniques, e.g., CoMP
(including coordinated scheduling and beamforming), carrier aggregation
(including cross carrier scheduling), high order MIMO, to enhance the
coverage and/or capacity of the virtualized small cell system
Supporting enhanced SON operation by providing visibility of operation
across a cluster of physical remote small cell units, including allowing
dynamic resource allocation and traffic load balancing
Improved future proofing by being able to add additional processing at small
number of accessible central locations in contrast to upgrading a large
number of individual small cells in less accessible public spaces.
Simplifying the remote management of the many physical network functions
as capability is relocated into the centralized VNF component
Leveraging standard NFV Infrastructure by moving at least part of the basestation on to standard IT servers, storage and switches
Enabling NFV based service-chaining, e.g., as described in [SCF154], to
integrate the virtualized small cell with other VNF-based functions, including
creating a competitive environment for innovative third party applications by
unlocking proprietary boundaries

Examining the above capabilities, it is evident why the Small Cell Forums study has
primarily focused on the issues associated with decomposing the small cell (or more
generally the base station) protocol stack and its segmentation between a physical
network function (PNF) and a centralized element that is then suitable to be realized
as a virtual network function (VNF). However, one of the aims of this small cell
virtualization study has been to take a more holistic view of the topic, looking at
technology, system and business implications of applying virtualization techniques to
the small cell radio access network and so this document also examines the system
architecture issues with supporting a virtualized small cell.
Note, while the main focus of this study is small cells, it is expected that some of the
results may be applicable to the virtualization of base stations of all sizes.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

1.1

Structure of this document

This overview is structured around the different disciplines represented by the Forums
working groups. Compared with the detailed definition work of previous releases that
involved the entire Forums working groups, the virtualization study represents a more
focused analysis of the topic. The areas covered include:

1.2

Market drivers: Examines the business case impacts from a TCO

perspective associated with adopting small cell virtualization
Motivations for small cell virtualization study: Describes the rationale
behind the study from the Forums Operator Group
Small cell decomposition: Looks at alternative approaches to decomposing
small cell functions between physical and virtual components
Coverage, capacity and performance aspects of small cell
virtualization: Examines the impact of virtualization on being able to
support various advanced multi-point co-ordination capabilities to deliver
capacity and/or coverage capabilities
Network aspects of small cell virtualization: analyses the impact of base
station virtualization on the end-to-end small cell system

Value of SC-virtualization content for different audiences

Operators can use the study to develop their own access network virtualization
strategy and in particular will be able to frame out the issue of RAN virtualization from
a classical macro-CPRI perspective and contrast that with alternative virtualization
approaches suitable for being transport of networks that cannot support CPRI based
decomposition requirements.
Vendors can better understand the opportunity to evolve their small cell architectures
to address increasing levels of virtualization. It will help to refine their roadmaps to
ensure they are able to leverage the latest virtualization concepts whilst being aligned
with industry transition to virtualization.
Regulators can understand the impact of RAN virtualization and multi-tenancy on
regulatory aspects and have a better understanding of the decomposition of base
stations into Physical Network Function and Virtual Network Function.
Partner organisations engaged in network function virtualization are able to
understand how the Forum is positioned to address ETSI NFV Use Case #6 related to
base station virtualization, understand possible alignment of virtualization
requirements across different RAN types and possibly leverage cross-organizational
synergies.

1.3

Terminology

There is a general lack of consensus in the industry as to the terminology used to

describe the different aspects of RAN virtualization. For example, even though C-RAN
is a popular term, there is ambiguity around whether the C refers to centralized,
coordinated or cloud. Whilst there is less ambiguity in ETSI NFV as to the
characteristics of a virtual network function (an implementation of a network function
that can be deployed on a network function virtualization infrastructure) compared to
a physical network function (an implementation of a network function via a tightly
coupled software and hardware system), such terminology is not small cell, or RAN,
specific. Hence, the following terms are defined to help describe small cell
virtualization:
Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview
Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

Virtualized small cell: The applicability of NFV techniques to small cell base stations
whereby a subset of small cell functionality is run as one or more VNFs on virtualized
compute platforms and the remaining functionality is run on a physical network
function.
The analysis of the different split options between virtualized and physical network
functions is one of the key considerations of the Small Cell Forums study.
Centralized small cell: The virtualized small cell capability where the compute
platform hosting the Network Function comprising the subset of small cell functions is
remote from the remaining non-virtualized functions and is implemented as a VNF.
Remote small cell: The network functionality of the virtualized small cell that
encompasses the RF termination point and associated non-virtualized functions that is
implemented as a PNF. The combination of centralized small cell and remote small cell
provides all conventional small cell functionality.
Small cell fronthaul: The transport system used to provide connectivity between the
centralized small cell and the remote small cell. The Fronthaul transport system will
have associated bandwidth and delay/jitter characteristics. Grouping of characteristics
may be defined, e.g., describing fronthaul transport as ideal, near ideal, non-ideal,
etc.
Small cell resource coordination: The evolution of the centralized small cell,
whereby the centralized functionality includes co-ordination between functions
controlling multiple remote small cells. This coordination may provide enhanced
functionality compared to standardized X2 based co-ordination approaches.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

2. Motivation for small cell virtualization study

In June 2014, the Forums Operator Group met to discuss the impact of RAN
virtualization on the adoption of small cell based architectures. In particular, from an
industry adoption perspective, it was clear that cloud RAN and small cell deployment
were no longer being seen as an either/or approach, with research from MaravedisRethink indicating that the majority of operators deploying small cells will also look to
deploy virtualization in parts of their RAN and that over 90% of those operators
deploying cloud-RAN will also be using urban small cells, as illustrated in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1

Analysis of market adoption of RAN virtualization and small cells

However, whilst the above figure indicates that cloud-RAN and small cells should no
longer be presented as alternatives, there are issues concerning the evolution of the
radio access network that need to be addressed. For example, how should clusters of
small cells best interwork with a virtualized macro layer? Furthermore, having
competing approaches to virtualization in the macro and small cell may inhibit cooperation between the layers and reduce the operators return on investment. Indeed,
when polling operators on the key barriers to adopting virtualization in the access
network, a survey by Maravedis-Rethink indicated that a lack of a common approach
to virtualization would ultimately hinder adoption, as illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

Figure 2-2

Factors identified by MNOs as the key barriers to adopting virtualization in the

access network

As the mission of the Small Cell Forum is to reduce the barriers to adoption of small
cell technologies across a range of use cases, it was clearly evident that the issue of
virtualization was within the remit of the forum. However, unlike other bodies of work
from the Forum which were focused on the adoption of small cell technology by
particular well defined market segments, this virtualization issue was not restricted to
a single market segment. As a consequence, the SCFs board concluded that the
subject of small cell virtualization merited a broad analysis and study.
To frame out this small cell virtualization study, the forums Operator Group
formulated key questions that needed answering concerning the adoption of
virtualization technologies in the access network:
1. Is there any divergence between how virtualization is viewed from a
macro RAN perspective versus a small cell perspective?
Background: Importantly from a deployment perspective, small cells are
predominantly transported using IP/Ethernet based backhaul networks. This can be
contrasted with the initial proposals to virtualize the macro network which are based
on CPRI and an optical fiber based transport network with very tight tolerances on
delays.
2. What are the real business benefits of virtualization in the RAN? Do
benefits apply equally to macro and small cell deployment use cases?
Background: Some of the claimed advantages of virtualizing the macro layer have
been around total cost of ownership and benefits of deploying small form factor
Remote Radio Heads (RRHs) compared with composed traditional base station
equipment. Small cells are already small form factor and hence some of the claimed
TCO benefits may not equally apply to both macro and small cell.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

3. Are current small cell architectures well suited to

virtualization/cloudification?
Background: Whereas conventional macro based cloud RAN propositions are based
on a CPRI decomposition with ideal transport characteristics, small cell architectures
have been developed to address deployment scenarios that include residential use
cases where transport utilizes consumer grade broadband services. Can a small cell
proposition that has been specifically architected to be supported using non-ideal
backhaul networks be adapted to support virtualization and/or cloudification?
4. Are there unique attributes of small cell transport that impact fronthaul
considerations?
Background: Previous questions have highlighted the key role of transport
characteristics for supporting virtualization in the access network. Key aspects such as
synchronization, sharing as well as latency and bandwidth parameters may impact the
ability to support virtualization scenarios.
5. Can virtualization deliver a phased roadmap e.g., aligned with longerterm 5G directions?
Background: This observation recognizes that virtualization is being applied
retrospectively to existing small cell architectures. However, moving forward, it is
anticipated that as 5G gets defined, RAN virtualization is accepted as a core
requirement that needs to be accommodated by the 5G access architecture. However,
being able to apply virtualization to existing 4G access network can enable operators
to invest in capabilities that can then be re-used as operators eventually migrate
towards 5G based access networks.
6. How do we ensure virtualization supports innovation across a multi-vendor
ecosystem?
Background: One of the primary successes of the Small Cell Forum has been the
enablement of the delivery of multi-vendor small cell systems. Compared with these
standardized approaches, the small cell industry is already showcasing examples of
applying virtualization techniques to the small cell layer. However, these are currently
exclusively based on proprietary approaches. Hence, a key question to consider is
whether virtualization and multi-vendor are mutually exclusive approaches or whether
the successful multi-vendor ecosystem can be evolved to address new virtualization
opportunities.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

Figure 2-3

Complex issue required to be addressed when studying small cell virtualization

These questions from the Operator Group triggered the initialization of the Forums
virtualization study. Figure 2-3 highlights how the complexity of the virtualization
issue, requiring a set of competencies that are well matched to those of the Forum:

In particular, analysis of the issue requires capabilities for examining the

business case drivers for RAN virtualization, enabling the forum to leverage
its competencies in small cell business case analysis.
The overall business case will be influenced by the coverage and capacity
characteristics that can be beneficially supported by the virtualized small cell
layer, a set of skills that the Forum has in its RPH working group.
Virtualization requires additional deployment of the virtualized small cell
component and existing SCF architecture work can be leveraged to
understand the impact of virtual network function deployment on the
individual virtualized small cell use cases.
The SCF has expertise in analysing the challenges in supporting small cell
backhaul within its Backhaul/Transport group. These same transport
competencies can be re-applied to analyse the transport of the new fronthaul
interfaces.
Finally, the virtualization of the small cell layer has impacts on the end-toend small cell system, expertise that exists within the SCFs NET Working
Group.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

3. Small cell decomposition: virtualization use cases

Whilst extensive work on network function virtualization (NFV) has been performed by
ETSI, the focus to date on Use case #6: Virtualization of the Mobile Base Station has
been predominantly around the macro RAN use case. Examining use case #6 in more
detail highlights a range of capabilities described in section 1 that motivate the drive
to virtualize the base-station. These drivers are equally applicable to small cell,
including residential small cells, enterprise small cells, urban small cells and rural and
remote small cells.
However, unlike other virtualization use cases, applying NFV techniques to a base
station still necessitates a physical network function (PNF) that is responsible at least
for supporting the RF functions of the base station. This necessity to decompose a
small cell into physical and virtual network functions is the focus of [1], Small cell
virtualization use cases. Compared with the baseline macro use case of virtualization
that is based on CPRI, [1] analyses a range of different decomposition options as
illustrated in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1

Various possible LTE base station decompositions

The rationale for examining these alternative splits is related to the associated
requirements on the transport network for supporting the fronthaul link between the
VNF and PNF components.
As an increasing set of functions are implemented as a virtual network function, the
transport requirements in terms of bandwidth and latency become more onerous. In
particular, the conventional macro-cell decomposition relying on CPRI requires
bandwidth in excess of 2.5Gbps for supporting a standardized LTE 2x2 20 MHz base
station that today may be backhauled using 150 Mbps of bandwidth for user and
control traffic. More critically, the latency requirements of conventional backhaul
transport are typically bounded by the application requirements, for example with
3GPP recommending an upper bound of 30 ms for supporting real-time gaming
services. With the same CPRI based decomposition requiring transport latencies less
than 250 s, it is clear that fronthaul transport characteristics have a significant
impact on the types of decomposition that can be supported.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

[1] analyses different alternatives for functional decomposition between PNF and VNF,
including splits corresponding to the classical layering (PDCP/RLC/MAC/PHY) within an
LTE small cell, as well as fractional splits, for example Split-MAC and different SplitPHY approaches. Table 3-1 below summarizes the latency and bandwidth
characteristics associated with these decomposition use cases (detailed assumptions
are included in [1]).
Note: [2] also addresses the operation of the virtualized small cell when the transport
bandwidth is below the listed values.
Use Case
PDCP-RLC
RLC-MAC
Split MAC
MAC-PHY
PHY Split I
PHY Split II
PHY Split III
PHY Split IIIb
PHY Split IV
Table 3-1

One-Way Latency
Non Ideal 30ms
Sub Ideal 6ms
Sub Ideal 6ms
Ideal 250s Near
Ideal 2ms
Ideal 250s
Near Ideal 2ms
Ideal 250s
Near Ideal 2ms
Ideal 250s
Near Ideal 2ms
Ideal 250s
Near Ideal 2ms
Ideal 250s

DL Bandwidth
151Mbps
151Mbps
151Mbps
152Mbps

UL Bandwidth
48Mbps
48Mbps
49Mbps
49Mbps

173Mbps

452Mbps

933Mbps

903Mbps

1075Mbps

922Mbps

1966Mbps

1966Mbps

2457.6Mbps

2457.6Mbps

Latency and bandwidth characteristics associated with these decomposition use

cases.

In terms of deployment options, the definition of the virtualized small cell function
raises questions about where to locate such capability. [1] examines the use of
virtualization within the broad range of small cell deployments, highlighting a range of
options for hosting such functionality.
The hosting options for a large enterprise deployment are shown in Figure 3-2,
illustrating that the virtualized small cell function can be hosted either on site, by the
enterprises WAN service provider, geographically located in an MNOs regional data
center or at the perimeter of the MNOs network.

Figure 3-2

Hosting options for large enterprise deployment of virtualized small cell function

Urban deployment of the virtualized small cell function enables different connection
opportunities for the remote Physical Network Function, including
Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview
Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

10

Macro PNF is chained from a macro site with connection into the operator
managed network
Network termination point specific edge termination point into the operator
managed network
Metro Ethernet metro owned and managed backhaul

Accordingly, hosting options for the virtualized small cell function in the urban use
case are illustrated in Figure 3-3 and include:

On macro site
Metro network data center
Operator data center
Metro service provider
Geographically locally located or regional data center
Operators edge service provider

Figure 3-3

Hosting options for urban deployment of virtualized small cell function

A key conclusion of the use case analysis in [1] is that due to the wide and ranging
possible small cell deployment scenarios, one size fits all that is a virtualization
approach based on a single decomposition that can be applied to all deployment
scenarios - is unlikely to be able to cover all scenarios. To help characterize the
different options, the generic fronthaul transport network is characterized as
supporting one of four different capabilities:
Fronthaul
option
Non-ideal
Sub-ideal
Near-ideal
Ideal
Table 3-2

Transport characteristics
Supporting a one-way latency of up to 30ms, <10ms jitter, limited and variable
bandwidth
Supporting a one-way latency of up to 6ms, <2ms jitter and un-constrained
bandwidth
Supporting a one-way latency of up to 2ms, with minimal jitter and bandwidth
in excess of 2.5 Gbps (for a 20 MHz 2x2 small cell)
Supporting a one-way latency of less than 250s, with minimal jitter and
bandwidth in excess of 2.5 Gbps (for a 20 MHz 2x2 small cell)
Fronthaul transport options

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

11

4. Coverage, capacity and performance aspects of small cell

virtualization
Building on the use case analysis, four particular decompositions are analyzed in detail
around the benefits that can be achieved by deploying a centralized (virtualized) small
cell function. Such a centralized capability can be used to coordinate resources among
a cluster of remote small cells/physical network functions that may affect the
performance of the small cell network from a capacity and coverage perspective.
[2] describes how the centralization of functions that is enabled through virtualization
enables more advanced physical layer performance enhancement techniques, typically
found on large macrocells, to be used in small cell deployments. These techniques
include the coordination scheduling and the processing of information between
multiple cells and multiple antenna within a cell, which, to date, have not normally
been available on small cell systems.
Exactly which techniques can be used depends on the functional decomposition
between PNF and VNF components, which in turns also depends on the performance
and capabilities of the fronthaul link between them.
The techniques described in SCF160 include:

Carrier aggregation (inter and intra band)

Cross-carrier scheduling
High Order MIMO
DL and UL CoMP , including beamforming/coordinated scheduling

[2] includes a comprehensive review of 3GPP and NGMN analysis associated with
CoMP performance when operating over ideal and non-ideal backhaul. Whereas ideally
the analysis into coverage and capacity would be able to provide quantitative analysis
of the enhanced coverage and/or capacity benefits of small cell co-rdination, the
experience of 3GPP in simulating coordinated multi-point performance has highlighted
that, even with very well defined assumption, there was significant divergence in
reported results. Hence, whilst there was general consensus that coordinated
multipoint functionality would normally improve performance, the lack of agreement in
3GPP on the degree of improvement had consequences on the associated small cell
analysis.
[2] analyses four decompositions in detail, namely PDCP/RLC, Split-MAC, MAC/PHY
and Split-PHY. Table 4-1 shows these splits and the various different CoMP techniques
that are applicable to the different splits. The key takeaway is that the lower down in
the protocol stack the decomposition occurs, the greater the ability to benefit from the
enhanced co-ordination techniques. For example, a decomposition based on PHY Split
III supports all possible techniques, whereas a decomposition based on PDCP/RLC only
supports co-ordinated scheduling/co-ordinated beamforming techniques.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

12

Advanced RF combining capability

PDCP/
RLC

Split
MAC

MAC/
PHY

Split
PHY

Carrier aggregation

Cross carrier scheduling

High order MIMO

Down link joint processing joint transmission

(JT)

Uplink joint reception (JR) independent PHY

decoding

Uplink joint reception (JR) joint equalization

PHY decoding

Join processing dynamic point selection

(DPS)
Coordinated scheduling/beamforming (CS/CB)
UL and DL
Table 4-1

Mapping of enhanced co-ordination techniques to virtualization use cases splits

One of the challenges introduced with operating a decomposed small cell over a
fronthaul link is associated with the additional latency and in particular the limited
delay budget necessary to meet HARQ processing requirements. [2] discusses the use
of HARQ interleaving that uses standardized signaling to defer buffer emptying,
enabling higher latency fronthaul links to be accommodated. Such a technique is
applicable to PHY Split III, MAC-PHY and Split-MAC based decompositions.
While HARQ interleaving functionally is standardized, its operation does add additional
latency to the overall transmission flow in both the downlink and uplink, and may,
when a decomposed small cell is serving only a limited number of UEs, limit the peak
cell throughput. Note that, while increasing the number of UEs active in a cell will
mitigate this impairment from an aggregate cell capacity perspective, a single UE will
never be able to achieve peak cell throughput (e.g., as represented by a single user in
a cell).

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

13

5. Impact of base station virtualization on the end-to-end small

cell system
Whereas [1] and [2] are primarily focused on issues associated with the base station
protocol stack and its segmentation between a physical network function (PNF) and a
centralized element that can then be realized as a virtual network function (VNF), one
of the aims of this small cell virtualization study is to understand the impact of base
station virtualization on the end-to-end small cell system.
[4] examines the impact of small cell virtualization on the currently defined
management architecture. Using ETSI-NFV and 3GPP architectures that support
combined PNF and VNF systems, this document frames the evolution of the current
multi-vendor small cell management system to address this functional decomposition.
Figure 5-1 shows one example of how co-ordination can be realized between PNF and
VNF components. As the 3GPP Small Cell management architecture leverages many of
the concepts originally defined by the Broadband Forum (BBF), [4] examines how
virtualization is impacting BBF defined architectures, drawing parallels between the
forums small cell decomposition study and on-going BBF work defining a Network
Enhanced Residential Gateway (NERG), where a NERG is defined as a virtual CPE
where functions of the CPE reside both in the subscribers premises and in the network
service providers network.

Figure 5-1

Example PNF/VNF management co-ordination via OSS/BSS

From an enterprise small cell architecture perspective, attention is focused on the

impact of virtualization on the previously defined enterprise small cell network
architecture, highlighting similarities between the centralized small cell virtualized
function and previously defined Enterprise Small Cell Concentrator functionality.
Network Function forwarding graph techniques are described that enables the
decomposed small cell to be integrated within existing enterprise architectures, as
illustrated in Figure 5-2.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

14

Figure 5-2

Services integration using a virtualized ESCG/ESCC that is integrated with the

centralized small cell virtualized function VNF.

Examining the enterprise use case in more detail, a survey of WAN bandwidths
together with typical configuration was used to estimate the quality of Enterprise WAN
service to support different fronthaul characteristics. Figure 5-3 summarizes the
analysis, indicating that 35% of WAN services were estimated to have characteristics
able to support non-ideal fronthaul. More precisely:

20% of the total, or 57% (20/35) of the fronthaul compatible WAN services,
were able to support sub-ideal fronthaul
10% of the total, or 28% (10/35) of the fronthaul compatible WAN services,
were able to support near-ideal fronthaul, and
2% of the total, or 5% (2/35) of the fronthaul compatible WAN services,
were able to support ideal fronthaul service.

Figure 5-3

Analysis estimating the CDF of transport delay associated with existing enterprise
WAN service and mapping to fronthaul types

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

15

Finally, the benefits of virtualization/centralization as it relates to efficient resource

utilization are analyzed, with techniques described that can leverage the non-uniform
spatial and temporal utilization to improve the efficiency of virtualized small cell
deployments. Figure 5-4 shows one example of non-uniform spatial distribution that
can be leveraged by a more centralized VNF, in this example illustrating a 4-to-1 gain
in terms of resource allocation compared with a conventional distributed small cell
approach.

Figure 5-4

Peak-to-mean non-uniform spatial distribution

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

16

6. Examining the business case impacts for small cell

virtualization
The use case analysis in [1] indicates the importance of fronthaul characteristics when
considering the options available for small cell virtualization. However, the fronthaul
transport has a significant impact on the overall virtualized small cell business case.
Key to the business case drivers for virtualized small cells is to understand the costs
associated with higher performance fronthaul transport versus the benefits in terms of
improved RF performance (covered in [2]) and/or improved resource utilization
(covered in [4]).
While the Forum has previously avoided publications examining direct cost
comparisons between backhaul solutions based on different technologies, the impact
of transport on the overall TCO of virtualized RAN was felt significantly important to
merit analysis. Instead of publishing results of an internal investigation, the Forum
contracted Real Wireless to produce an independent analysis. [3] describes the results
of this Real Wireless study into the cost elements for a range of small cell RAN
virtualization options. Whereas the Forum is interested in analyzing the business
benefits of virtualization in all deployment use cases, the dominance of transport in
the overall analysis focused the study on those deployment use cases where transport
costs were well defined. This led to the analysis being focused on the urban
deployment of virtualized small cells, compared with enterprise use cases where
transport can be provided by the enterprise LAN/WAN and residential that leverages
incumbent consumer broadband connectivity, both at very low marginal costs.
Leveraging earlier work by the Forum examining the business case for urban small
cells [8], the analysis investigates where a virtualized small cell network architecture
differs from that of a traditional small cells included, specifically looking at impacts on:

Transport costs for a range of transport technologies and the throughput and
latency requirements of the various RAN decomposition options;
Deployment costs;
Power consumption (driving electricity costs) that varies according to the
change of processing in the core (virtualised functions of core servers) versus
in the small cells.

Leveraging feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, including five wireline

transport providers, six wireless transport providers, five mobile operators and one
silicon vendor, the analysis examines a number of different transport options
available:

Managed fiber: where the capacity can be leased from the fiber service
providers using their existing fiber network.
Dark fiber: this is a fiber connection that is not lit. The fiber provider will
typically splice an extension to an existing fiber in order to terminate the
connection but the end user has the responsibility to installing the
terminating equipment.
Copper (VDSL2 and G.fast): this is very high bit rate digital subscriber line,
usually provided by the leased line providers.
Sub-6 GHz: wireless communications systems that uses sub 6 GHz licensed
and unlicensed spectrum.
Microwave (6 - 42 GHz): wireless communications systems in point-point
and Pointto-multipoint forms.
mmWave (60 GHz): wireless communications systems that provide pointto-point communications using 60 to 80 GHz bands.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

17

For each transport option, the support for the various virtualization splits defined in
[1] is discussed together with future evolutions of the particular transport system to
enable possibly unsupported splits to be accommodated in future years. Importantly,
cost aspects associated with both capital and operational aspects are combined into an
overall TCO figure.

$k

5 year TCO (in 2020) of different splits

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 6-1

Dark Fibre
Managed Fiber
Wireless (60GHz)
Copper
S1 (D-RAN)

PDCP/RLC

MAC/PHY

CPRI,ORI

188Mbps

188Mbps

188Mbps

2.5Gbps

50ms

30ms

2-6ms

250us

TCO comparison of different splits

Source: Real Wireless

Figure 6-1 shows the variation in TCO for different functional splits with different
transport technologies. In most cases it shows the higher performance required by
different functional splits has little impact on the TCO. In the managed fiber case, the
CPRI split would be charged at a premium due to the tougher SLA. Copper is not
expected to evolve to support the CPRI split.
The analysis also indicates significant regional differences in the TCO comparisons
between services available in Europe, US and Japan.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

18

7. Virtualization study conclusions

Given that this study into virtualization was initiated by a set of questions posed by
the Forums Operator Group, it is instructive to examine whether the study has been
able to answer the particular issue.
Q1. Is there any divergence between how virtualization is viewed from a
macro RAN perspective versus a small cell perspective?
The study concluded that in contrast to the ideal transport required for supporting
macro-cell decompositions based on CPRI/ORI, a range of transport characteristics can
be supported for virtual small cells, including those that may be able to be supported
within conventional small cell deployments in residential, enterprise and urban
environments.
Q2. What are the real business benefits of virtualization in the RAN? Do
benefits apply equally to macro and small cell deployment use cases?
Virtualization gains associated with the non-uniform spatial and temporal consumption
of mobile data and the resource efficiencies obtained by centralizing functionality are
equally applicable to macro and small-cell virtualization. Gains in terms of radio
efficiencies are associated with the selected decomposition, with an increasing set of
capabilities able to be applied the further down the radio stack the split is performed.
When virtualization is performed using a PDCP/RLC and MAC/PHY splits, virtualization
can be realized with no increased transport costs and is able to be supported over all
technologies. Conversely, virtualization based on the classical CPRI/ORI split requires
low latency high bandwidth services that are currently unable to be supported over
managed fiber and copper based transport services.
Q3. Are current small cell architectures well suited to virtualization/
cloudification?
Previous SCF architectures have highlighted the benefits of hierarchical mobility
scaling with the introduction of the enterprise small cell concentrator [9] that can be
seen as providing some of the benefits of centralization as described in the
introduction. Further, in [6] the opportunities associated with applying Network
Function Virtualization to the small cell core network have been described including
these hierarchical concentrator functions. Hence, applying virtualization to the small
cell itself can be seen as an evolution of already defined enterprise small cell
architectures, enabling the benefits of centralization and virtualization to be applied
across all small cell market segments
Q4. Are there unique attributes of small cell transport that impact fronthaul
considerations?
Much of the focus of the small cell virtualization study has been associated with the
impact that the transport characteristics have on the ability to decompose a small cell
into a physical network function and a virtual network function. Compared with
traditional techniques that require ideal-transport for fronthaul connectivity, i.e. dark
fiber, the study has examined alternative decompositions that can be supported over a
range of transport options, enabling strict requirements on fronthaul latency and
bandwidth to be reduced.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

19

Q5. Can virtualization deliver a phased roadmap e.g., aligned with longerterm 5G directions?
This study has highlighted that applying network function virtualization to the radio
access network is a trend that will likely be adopted in advance of any 5G definition.
Whilst applying virtualization retrospectively to a pre-existing RAN architecture is
indeed more complex than including virtualization as a foundational requirement when
a new RAN architecture gets defined, the study has highlighted those key lower layer
RAN functionalities and transport characteristics that impact the supported
decomposition and associated virtualization approach.
Decomposing an LTE base station into a PNF and VNF component in advance of 5G will
surely provide those operators deploying such an architecture valuable competencies
and insights that can be applied to any future 5G deployments.
Q6. How do we ensure virtualization supports innovation across a multivendor ecosystem?
The small cell ecosystem has already embraced FAPI based base station
decomposition, based on a MAC/PHY split [10], which enables small cell
manufacturers to adopt a multi-vendor silicon strategy. Further, the Small Cell Forum,
in co-operation with ETSI and NGMN alliance have been working together since 2010
to conduct multi-vendor Plugfests to accelerate the alignment of small cell network
technologies [11].
These two proof points highlight that multi-vendor virtualized small cells based on an
agreed decomposition is an achievable goal that the industry can aspire towards.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

20

8. Summary
Virtualization is set to impact conventional small cell architectures, but its adoption
requires a balancing act to be performed between often conflicting requirements of a
need to support the widest possible range of transport characteristics, the need to
deliver timely multi-vendor systems, the opportunity to enhance RF performance
through the use of multi-point co-ordination and the prospect of being able to
leverage COTS datacenter hardware to host the VNF components.
Indeed many of the claimed benefits of virtualization are in fact due to the
centralization of functions realized by a decomposition of a conventional small cell into
two functional elements. These include:

Enhanced scalability whereby (frequent) mobility events are masked from

upper layers and new cells can be easily added to the network
Improved inter-cell interference co-ordination and SON capability
Reduced security exposure by re-locating air-interface security termination
from the small cell to a more central location
Facilitating policy to be applied to aggregate level e.g., WAN based
admission control in the enterprise
Simplifying PNF management compared with full small cell
Avoiding complication of deploying intercept points at the small cell/PNF
location when delivering enhanced services

The benefits associated the virtualization of these central functions include:

Reduction in resources because of lower peak-to-mean of aggregated

traffic/events/users
Easy to scale up centralized component with standard compute
Facilitates upgrade lifecycle: new features can be more rapidly deployed on a
virtual platform and wound back if needed.
Flexibility: enables functions to be moved around depending on loading
conditions or availability of compute and transport capacity resources.
Standard NFV service chains to couple small cells to other VNFs, including
data plane handling functions as per SVC/MEC definitions

However, such decomposition into centralized and remote functionality comes at the
cost of tighter constraints on the transport characteristics, the more base station
functionality that is centralized, the more onerous these requirements. Today, two
extremes are available:

Classical small cell: whereby all base station functionality is distributed to the
physical network function and backhaul requirements accommodate low cost
consumer grade broadband
CPRI based C-RAN: whereby all base station functionality with the exception
of RF is centralized and fronthaul requirements may require expensive dark
fiber deployments

This study has demonstrated that when compared with these extremes, there is a
range of small cell base station decompositions that are feasible, enabling operators to
benefit from centralizing functionality while being able to trade off the transport
requirements versus radio performance of the alternative approaches, and enabling
virtualization to be applied to the small cell radio access network, as illustrated in
Figure 8-1.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

21

Figure 8-1

Summary of benefits versus costs of various different split options

Specifically, the analysis concludes that the MAC/PHY split delivers most of the
benefits of centralization, with only a small increase in transport performance and is
well aligned with the current small cell multi-vendor ecosystem approach based on the
functional application platform interface (FAPI). For those use cases that face
restrictions from a transport perspective such that the backhaul system cannot be
enhanced to support the MAC/PHY split, then the PDCP/RLC split has the potential to
deliver a subset of the centralization benefits but with no additional transport
requirements when compared with conventional small cell deployments.
Given such a positive analysis, the Forum is motivated to define a transportable
interface for the spit small cell, to establish a scalable ecosystem with a converged
approach to virtualization across multiple suppliers.

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

22

References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

[SCF159] Business case elements for small cell virtualization, Small Cell Forum
[SCF160] Coverage and capacity impacts of virtualization, Small Cell Forum
[SCF158] Business case elements for small cell virtualization, Small Cell Forum
[SCF161] Network aspects of virtualized small cells, Small Cell Forum
[SCF106] Overview of virtualization for small cells, Small Cell Forum
[SCF154] Case histories for rural and remote small cells, Small Cell Forum
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV): Use Cases, ETSI GS NFV 001
[SCF087] Business case for urban small cells, Small Cell Forum
[SCF067] Enterprise small cell network architectures, Small Cell Forum
[SCF082] LTE eNB L1 API definition, Small Cell Forum
[SCF085] Value of Small Cell Forum Plugfests, Small Cell Forum

Report title: Virtualization for small cells: Overview

Issue date: 09 June 2015
Version: 106.07.01

23