Wireless Backhaul for LTE - Requirements,

Challenges and Options

G Kalimani Venkatesan, Kishor Kulkarni, Wipro Technologies, Bangalore 560100
Email: {kalimani.venkatesan.kishor.kulkarni}@wipro.com

support this inter-Base station communication requirement.

Abstract-Next Generation Broadband Wireless Technologies
such as 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) and WiMax offer
significantly higher data rates and require suitably higher ~
MME/&GW
~
MME/5-GW
capacity backhaul networks. While some service providers have 1\ ~

i\ ,/i
1\ II

started rolling out WiMax, 3GPP LTE is expected to be

standardized during 2009, and many service providers are
planning to offer LTE services by 2010-2012. Apart from )F:en "\ ,/" en:(J~»)
significantly higher speeds, LTE Base stations (eNBs) require
{J
I \ I I

i ~ ~ i
logical full mesh connectivity due to the flat all-IP architecture. I

:
\

" X2 !
I I

: E-UTRAN
This paper explores the Wireless backhaul network eNS ' \ \ \ «» / / eNS
infrastructure options for addressing the LTE bandwidth and
connectivity challenges. The paper details the backhaul ~~O/~
requirements for 3GPP LTE as specified in the LTE eNS
specifications. The paper analyses different architectures for the
Fig.I. LTE Backhaul- Connectivity requirement
Backhaul Access and Aggregation networks. The paper
proposes a logical topology model for the Aggregation network,
examines its realization via Carrier Ethernet Transport and A summary of the key requirements for LTE Backhaul is
IP/MPLS, and identifies technology gaps in realizing the logical given below -
topology model. The paper concludes that while MPLS satisfies
the requirements better today, given the time available for LTE 1. Higher data rates: From 100/50 Mbps DL/UL up to 1
evolution, native Carrier Ethernet Transport could emerge as a
Gbps DL between eNB and MME/SAE-GW.
strong candidate for future deployments.
2. Flat Architecture: MMEs/ SAE-GW and eNB shall be
connected in a many-to-many relationship.
I. LTE ARCHITECTURE AND BACKHAUL REQUIREMENTS
3. Low latency: Providing lower user and control plane
latency [e.g. less than 5ms in ideal conditions].

3 GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) [1] is a significant

evolutionary step for UMTS in terms of capacity and
architecture. LTE aims to offer a minimum of 100/50 Mbps
DL/UL (Downlink/Uplink, 1 sector, 20MHz spectrum) and up
to 1 Gbps DL (3 sectors, DL/UL of 300/150 Mbps per sector)
per LTE Base Station (eNB). This is significant increase over
3G with peak data rates around 30 Mbps. Consequently, the
existing 3G Wireless Backhaul Access network capacities
need to be significantly increased to cater to LTE backhaul.
The Radio Access Network (RAN) connectivity has been
evolving towards a flat, all-IP architecture with reduced
number of Network elements for lower latency. As seen in
Fig.l. LTE defines direct connectivity ("SI") between the
LTE eNB and the LTE Gateways (Mobility Management
Entity-MME) without any Radio Network Controller. Hence,
LTE eNB carries more intelligence for functionalities like
Radio Resource Management towards distributed decision
making, which requires inter-eNB logical connectivity
("X2"). Again, existing Backhaul networks do not naturally
4. Connectivity: Point-to-point (P2P), point-to-multipoint
(P2MP, Multicast) and multipoint-to-multipoint
(MP2MP, Broadcast) traffic between various network
entities.
5. Guaranteed QoS, multi CoS: Handle different IP traffic
classes - Real-time, Non-Real time, and Mission critical.
6. High Availability, Resiliency, Fault and Performance
management
Additional intrinsic requirements on the Backhaul network
such as (i) Scalability (in Bandwidth provisioning for
incremental rollouts, in Cell Sites), (ii) Logistical (Access
Network Reach, Ease/Speed of new deployment), (iii)
Migration / Upgrade paths (from existing 2G/3G
UMTS/CDMA backhaul networks, as well as scaling for the
future), (iv) Service continuity (support 2G/3G services and
Network elements over the backhaul, TDM/ATM emulation,
and Timing/Synchronization transport), all at Lower
Capex/Opex and at service levels equal to or better than
existing TDM based network infrastructures.

Authorized licensed use limited to: TONGJI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 29, 2009 at 11:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

II. LTEBACKHAULARCHITECTURALOPTIONS
A. Access Network Technology Options
Bandwidth, Cell-site Reach, available Upgrade paths are
key criteria for evaluating the Access options. Broadband
Access technologies such as (i) VDSL2 (with bonding for
capacity, co-located DSLAMs at Cell Sites), (ii) PON (GPON,
G EPON; Upgrades via with lOG GPON/10G GEPON, WDM
PON), (iii) Ethernet over Fiber (WDM - 1 to 10 Gbps, with
Carrier Ethernet Metro rings), (iv) Microwave Radios:
PDHlSDH Radios or native Ethernet Framed Radios with
Switched Ethernet functionality and (v) NG SONET/SDH
(investment utilization, till transformation to Carrier Grade
PSNs) can be considered for the LTE Access Network.
B. Aggregation Network - Technology Options
Depending on the user traffic and network control traffic
patterns, and associated CoS requirements, appropriate
connectivity models can be adopted for the Aggregation
network. As in the following figure, the LTE eNB ~ Network
Controller connectivity can be modeled as a set of P2P or
P2MP tunnels, or a mix of both. The Inter-eNB connectivity,
for Network control traffic such as handoffs, would fit a
MP2MP model.
Fig.2. LTE Backhaul- Logical Connectivity with P2P, P2MP and MP2MP
- P2P model requires N (number of eNBs) traffic
engineered tunnels. Multiple traffic classes can be supported
within one tunnel via CoS identifiers. Connection oriented
P2P tunnels with admission control (CAC), and Path
protection (by an Active/Standby P2P tunnel pair) is ideal for
meeting stringent QoS requirements.
- P2MP model, which allows for bidirectional eNB ~ NC
connectivity can also be used to carryall traffic classes. One
P2MP tunnel can be provisioned across all eNBs, or one
tunnel per set of eNBs, or one tunnel per service class. The
illustration depicts two P2MP tunnels, one per service class.
Multicast applications, such as Multicast Video and Network
Authorized licensed use limited to: TONGJI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 29, 2009 at 11:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2
Synchronization via Packet based Timing, suit this model.
- MP2MP model avoids having N tunnels from each eNB
to every other eNB (N2 tunnels), and requires a single tunnel
at a eNB, leaving the interconnection complexity to the
network.
When mapped to MEF services [2][3] (via IP/MPLS or
native Carrier Ethernet Transport), P2P maps to Ethernet
Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service, P2MP maps to Ethernet
Virtual Private Tree (EVP-Tree) service, and MP2MP maps
to Ethernet Virtual Private LAN (EVP-LAN) service. The
following sections evaluate native Carrier Ethernet Transport
and MPLS for realizing the logical connectivity models.
1) Carrier Ethernet Transport
Realizing the connectivity models is through a mix of
Provider Bridging (PB) [4]/ Backbone Bridging (PBB) [5]/
Backbone Bridging with Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) [6]
technologies, and the options are listed below in the order of
suitability. Carrier Ethernet Transport evolution and
challenges have been evaluated in [12].
TABLE I
REALIZING CONNECTIVITY MODELS WITH PB / PBB / PBB-TE
Connectivity Options [* - Not standardized]
P2P - PBB-TE with NMS or GMPLS, involving CAC, pinned
(EVP-Line) paths and sub-50 msec protection via CCM.
- PBB with PLSB as control plane*
- PB with STPIIVL, or VLAN tunneling or cross connect.
P2MP - PBB with PLSB as control plane *
(EVP-Tree) - PB with STPIIVL, or VLAN tunneling or cross connect
(P2MP with more than one SVLAN)
MP2MP - PBB with PLSB as control plane *
(EVP-LAN) - PB / PBB with IVL + P2P PBB-TE (like VPLS with
EoMPLS Pseudowires)
For P2P transport, PBB-TE offers a Connection oriented
model. PBB-TE addresses network/node scalability, avoids
xSTP limitations and learning based forwarding with a
configured or a GMPLS control plane based approach,
provides resilience with preconfigured protection path and
sub-50 msec switchover. However, currently, PBB-TE is
limited to P2P. P2MP or MP2MP support can be derived via
PLSB (Provider Link State Bridging). Future enhancements
to PBB-TE for native P2MP support can be via GMPLS [7].
Also, PBB-TE today does not support Pseudowires natively
[8], which is a key requirement for 3G services continuity.
Instead of PBB-TE, PB and PBB can be configured to offer
P2P, P2MP and MP2MP connectivity. A P2P VLAN tunnel
with PB can be constructed by configuring each eNB in a
unique S-VLAN, and the Network Controller attaching to
multiple S-VLANs. This would impose the known VLAN
scaling issues (4094) for eNB. With PBB, a P2P VLAN can
be constructed without scaling limitations, by mapping the 1-
SID for each eNB as a unique service instance. However, with
PB and PBB, it would be more common to use a
Shared/Service based EVC model, with an S-VLAN shared
across a set of eNBs for a specific Traffic class.

2) MPLS
Being the technology of choice in Mobile core network,
MPLS can logically be extended into the Aggregation. Also,
MPLS is more than a mere transport, as the many services
that have spawned off it (Pseudowires, L3 VPN, L2 VPN)
have become indispensable. Pseudowires are indispensable to
migrating the 2G TDM and 3G ATM elements to a Packet
backhaul, and MPLS is the only defined PSN today for
carrying Pseudowires. The table below lists the possible
MPLS options and availabilities in the order of suitability.
TABLE II
REALIZING CONNECTIVITY MODELS WITH MPLS
Connectivity Options [* - Not standardized]
P2P - EoMPLS Pseudowires or native IP over MPLS
(EVP-Line) - CAC with RSVP-TE or NMS provisioned
- Protection with FRR and PW redundancy [8]*
- Multi-segment PW with PW-stitching for scalability[7] *
- Dry-Martini for simplification at Access *
P2MP - Multicast MPLS - RSVP-TE, LDP with P2MP extensions,
(EVP-Tree) which doesn't require IP Multicast Routing.
- FRR for P2MP MPLS-TE *
MP2MP - VPLS
(EVP-LAN) - Scaling with H-VPLS;VPLS with 802. lah/802. lad [9]*
MPLS provides P2P Traffic Engineered tunnels, setup by
RSVP-TE. These P2P tunnels can be protected by fast-reroute
(FRR), which can offer 50 msec restoration times. End-to-end
Pseudowire path protection can also be provisioned via PW
Redundancy.
MPLS support for P2MP has been standardized, with
P2MP extensions for RSVP-TE and LDP. With one MPLS
P2MP tunnel (from NC to eNB) and multiple P2P tunnels
(from eNB to NC), an EVP-TREE topology can be realized.
This can be used for both Unicast and Multicast traffic.
MP2MP support to communicate across eNBs can be via
VPLS, or H-VPLS with 802.lad (PB) or 802.lah (PBB).
- MPLS P2P solution would require tunnels as the number
of eNBs (O[N]). To reduce the scalability burden, Multi-
segment Pseudowires with PW-stitching can be used. Each
eNB/CSG gets connected via a PW tunnel till the Mobile
Aggregation Gateway (Access segment), where many such
PW are "stitched" together to provide a single tunnel towards
the NC (Aggregation segment). This would ease the number
of tunnels at the Aggregation.
- The Access segment Pseudowires can also be statically
configured, reducing the complexity. At the Access nodes,
running a full IP routing and MPLS signaling functionality
not needed. It is possible to simplify this by having static
configuration for routes, MPLS labels and Pseudowire label,
and the data plane encapsulation alone for Pseudowires.
Again, using PW stitching, Aggregation gateway can connect
Authorized licensed use limited to: TONGJI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 29, 2009 at 11:26 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
such static Pseudowires to Dynamic P2P tunnels.
3) Hybrid: Carrier Ethernet & MPLS
TABLE III
CARRIER ETHERNET TRANSPORT AND IPIMPLS COMPARISON
Carrier Ethernet Transport IPIMPLS
Strengths - Possible Lower Capex/Opex. - Proven
- Good for P2P with PBB-TE - Pseudowires
- Stron~er 0 AM toolkit - P2PIP2MP with TE
Weakness - P2MP with xSTP, no TE/QoS - Perceived complexity,
- Not proven higher Capex and
Opex.
The table above compares Carrier Ethernet and IP/MPLS
for the LTE backhaul. Rather than adopting single technology
approaches, solutions can take advantage of each
technology's strengths for specific application. An example is
a Hybrid solution for providing MP2MP inter eNB
connectivity. Assuming the Aggregation is PB/PBB based,
the P2MP/MP2MP approach with the multicast PLSB support
is only a future option. Instead, it is possible to emulate the
VPLS model by having PB clouds (connecting sets of eNBs)
connecting via PBB-TE tunnels to each other. Or, a first level
access/aggregation network could provide PBB-TE based
VPLS, interconnecting over an MPLS Aggregation Network.
III. CONCLUSION
This paper has analyzed the LTE backhaul requirements at
Access and Aggregation. The LTE connectivity model goes
beyond the existing 'single tunnel aggregation' model and
requires traffic engineered P2P, P2MP and MP2MP
connectivity. Between native Carrier Ethernet and MPLS,
MPLS is seen as a better option in the current assessment to
satisfy LTE backhaul requirements. However, innovations in
Carrier Ethernet transport, and time factor for LTE
deployment could bring Carrier Ethernet into contention.
REFERENCES
[I] E-UTRAN Architecture description, 3GPP TS 36.401, 3GPP
specifications [online].:http://www.3 gpp.orgj
[2] Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2, MEF 10.1.1 specification, June
2008, Metro Ethernet Forum [online]. http://www.metroethemetforum.org
[3] Mobile Backhaul Implementation Agreement, MEF D00065_ 003, June
2008, Metro Ethernet Forum [online]. http://www.metroethernetforum.org
[4] Provider Bridges, IEEE 802.lad, draft 6, March 2008 [online] Available:
http://ieee802.orgj
[5] Provider Backbone Bridges, IEEE 802.lah draft, Jan 2008,[online]
[6] Provider Backbone Bridging with Traffic Engineering, IEEE 802.1 Qay,
March 2008, [online]
[7] Don Fedyk, et aI., "GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE", draft-fedyk-
gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02, IETF draft [online]..http://www.ietf.orgj
[8] D. Allan, et aI., "Carrying PWE3 Pseudo Wires over Provider Backbone
Transport", draft-allan-pw-o-pbt-03, IETF [online]. http://www.ietf.orgj
[9] Bocci, et aI., "An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge" draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch, IETF [online]
[10] Muley, et aI, "Pseudowire Redundancy", draft-muley-pwe3-pw-
redundancy, IETF draft [online]. Available: http://www.ietf.orgj
[II] A. Sajassi, et aI., "VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone
Bridges", draft-sajassi-12vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-Ol, IETF draft [online].
[12] Kishor Kulkarni, G Kalimani Venkatesan, "Carrier Ethernet - State ofArt
and Challenges Ahead"; IEEE ANTS Conference, Dec 2007.