Virtualized eNB latency limits

Valcarenghi, L.; Giannone, F.; Manicone, D.; Castoldi, P.

doi:10.1109/icton.2017.8025037

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Please note that some of the references for this section are placed here due to estimated locations of the split, where option 7-1 was found most suitable. [5], [12], [26], [27], [29], [30], [31], [33], [34], [38], [41], [48], [49] Simulations: [44], [53], [55], [58], [60], [61], [75], [76], [77], [78] Practical experiments: [79], [80] In this functional split, the Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) is included locally in the DU. Due to the Fourier transformation the data to be transmitted over the fronthaul interface is represented by subcarriers.…”

Section: Option 7-1: Low Phymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[60] shows how split 7-1 obtains a gain of 43.8% in terms of fronthaul link throughput reduction compared with split 8. Simulations in [76] shows very small variations in the fronthaul bitrate when one attached User Entity (UE) is offered different traffic amounts. The authors conclude that as expected, the capacity requirement is independent of the traffic generated by the UE.…”

Section: Option 7-1: Low Phymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [20] NGMN presents a 0.25 ms maximum fronthaul latency. [76] presents a simulation considering split option 7-1, where a 10 MHz carrier has the fronthaul latency limit of 0.2 ms and a 5 MHz carrier has the fronthaul latency limit of 0.25 ms. The fronthaul latency is also considered in [115].…”

Section: A Fronthaul Latencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Survey of the Functional Splits Proposed for 5G Mobile Crosshaul Networks

Larsen

Checko²,

Christiansen

2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

327

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pacing the way towards 5G has lead researchers and industry in the direction of centralized processing known from Cloud-Radio Access Networks (C-RAN). In C-RAN research, a variety of different functional splits is presented by different names and focusing on different directions. The functional split determines how many Base Station (BS) functions to leave locally, close to the user, with the benefit of relaxing fronthaul network bitrate and delay requirements, and how many functions to centralize with the possibility of achieving greater processing benefits. This work presents for the first time a comprehensive overview systematizing the different work directions for both research and industry, while providing a detailed description of each functional split option and an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages. This work gives an overview of where the most effort has been directed in terms of functional splits, and where there is room for further studies. The standardization currently taking place is also considered and mapped into the research directions. It is investigated how the fronthaul network will be affected by the choice of functional split, both in terms of bitrates and latency, and as the different functional splits provide different advantages and disadvantages, the option of flexible functional splits is also looked into.

show abstract

Section: Option 7-1: Low Phymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Option 7-1: Low Phymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Survey of the Functional Splits Proposed for 5G Mobile Crosshaul Networks

Larsen

Checko²,

Christiansen

2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

327

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A programmable optical network testbed in support of C-RAN: a reliability study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of RAN Virtualization on Fronthaul Latency Budget: An Experimental Evaluation

Giannone

Gupta

Kondepu

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 3GPP the architecture of a New Radio Access Network (New RAN) has been defined where the evolved NodeB (eNB) functions can be split between a Distributed Unit (DU) and Central Unit (CU). Furthermore, in the virtual RAN (VRAN) approach, such functions can be virtualized (e.g., in simple terms, deployed in virtual machines). Based on the split type, different performance in terms of capacity and latency are requested to the network (i.e., fronthaul) connecting DU and CU.This study experimentally evaluates, in the 5G segment of the Advanced Research on NetwOrking (ARNO) testbed (ARNO-5G), the fronthaul latency requirements specified by Standard Developing Organizations (SDO) (3GPP in this specific case). Moreover it evaluates how much virtualization impacts the fronthaul latency budget for the the Option 7-1 functional split.The obtained results show that, in the considered Option 7-1 functional split, the fronthaul latency requirements are about 250 µs but they depend on the radio channel bandwidth and the number of the connected UEs. Finally virtualization further decreases the latency budget.

show abstract

Virtualized eNB latency limits

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

A Survey of the Functional Splits Proposed for 5G Mobile Crosshaul Networks

A Survey of the Functional Splits Proposed for 5G Mobile Crosshaul Networks

A programmable optical network testbed in support of C-RAN: a reliability study

Impact of RAN Virtualization on Fronthaul Latency Budget: An Experimental Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About