2011

Wireless data Throughput

Massimo Maffioletti Linkra Networks 12/04/2011

Antonio Di Bacco

White paper

Do you know how evaluate Wireless Data Throughput?

Keynote
The throughput of a wireless Data transport system can be presented in different ways, and can be used to add advantages where there are not. How can you make 340 Mbit/s look like 450 Mbit/s? Available radio bandwidth and the modulation scheme determine the throughput that can be achieved over a radio link, with some small variation. However, this does not stop some vendors which present throughput figures that include components that are not usable (radio overhead, etc), or that are stripped off before transmission over the radio link (Ethernet pre-amble and inter-frame gaps). The result is that a 340 Mbit/s link can be easily made to look like a 450 or more. It depends what you are including in your calculation. Here we try to explain the techniques involved, so that you can better evaluate and compare performances between different systems.

Wireless Transport techniques

Point-to-Point Licensed FDD Operation
For the purposes of this comparison, only licensed wireless systems are considered, even If LINKRA unlicensed Microwave systems are perfectly equals to license ones. These radio products operate in regulated frequency bands using FDD (frequency division duplex) channel arrangements, and provide full-duplex throughput that is available 100% of the time. The alternative to Point-to-Point Licensed FDD Operation is unlicensed operation, and a huge amount of products are available in the market using cheap OTS (Off The Shelf) chipsets or more expensive proprietary technologies to transport varying amounts of data over the unlicensed bands.

Modulation and Channel Bandwidth

Modern digital radios all implement QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) or similar techniques, to encode data onto a radio frequency (RF) carrier. For highest throughput, all vendors use 256 QAM in a 50 MHz (for North America) or 56 MHz (International) channel. Essentially, how much information you can fit into an RF channel ruled by industry- standard practices? For a fixed channel and modulation, only small variations are possible for the usable throughput, and usually they depend from the modulation efficiencies and the amount of redundancy radio overhead transmitted. For example, a lower FEC will allow more payload, but on the other end a poorer link error rate and therefore a lower overall (expected) link performance.

LINKRA S.r.l. a socio unico Gruppo COMPEL ELECTRONICS S.p.A. C.F. / R.I. 02441450968 - VAT 02441450968 - R.E.A. MI 1455940 - Capitale Sociale 95.000,00 i. v.

ISO 9001-2000

White paper

So Why the Differences in Throughput?

Since there is remarkably little difference in the ways that most radio vendors transport Ethernet data over a radio link, what explains the large variations in maximum throughput claimed by different vendors? The answer is in the fact that vendors use specifications and recommendations in an attempt to give advantage to their products. They are just trying to have a better position in the market. To explain this we will refer to the 7 layer OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model: Traditional radio systems are Layer 1 (Physical) transport devices. More recently, with the incorporation of a Layer 2 Ethernet switch, it is more accurate to such radios as Layer 2 (Data Link Layer) devices. consider

The throughput specifications quoted can vary significantly depending upon which Layer is being considered.

Layer 1 and Layer 2 Throughput

Ethernet Frame Structure
Each Ethernet frame consists of additional information besides the actual data payload. Of particular interest is the preamble, forming a header or introduction to the Ethernet frame, and the inter-frame, or inter-packet gap (IFG) between consecutive frames. The minimum IFG is 12 bytes. In the example shown in Figure 1, for a 64 byte frame size, these elements add a further 20 bytes to the total frame space. Figure 1. Basic Ethernet Frame Structure

FCS

IFG

PRE

MAC source

MAC source

Payload

FCS

IFG

PRE

Frame space (84 Bytes) Frame (64 Bytes) Packet (50 Bytes)

In the case of small frame sizes such as 64 bytes, the 20 bytes of preamble and IFG are significant compared to the frame. For a frame size of 1518 bytes, the preamble + IFG become less significant.

LINKRA S.r.l. a socio unico Gruppo COMPEL ELECTRONICS S.p.A. C.F. / R.I. 02441450968 - VAT 02441450968 - R.E.A. MI 1455940 - Capitale Sociale 95.000,00 i. v.

ISO 9001-2000

White paper
Layer 2 Throughput
Layer 2 throughput includes only the Ethernet frame, consisting of the payload, FCS and MAC Addresses, and excludes the preamble and IFG. In any given Ethernet system, the absolute maximum throughput will be equal to the data rate, e.g. 100 Mbit/s. In practice, these figures cannot be achieved because of the effect of frame size. The smaller size frames have a lower effective throughput than the larger sizes because of the addition of the pre-amble and the IFG bytes, which do not count as data throughput. The maximum achievable throughput for a 100 Mbit/s system for various frame sizes is given in Table 1. Table 1. Maximum Layer 2 Throughput for 100 Mbit/s Frame Size 64 128 256 512 1024 1280 1518 1522 Data Throughput Mbit/s 76.19 86.49 92.75 96.24 98.08 98.46 98.69 98.70 Preamble and IFG Mbit/s 23.81 13.51 7.25 3.76 1.92 1.54 1.30 1.30 Frames per Sec 148.809 84.459 45.289 23.496 11.973 9.615 8.127 8.106

In radio systems with integrated Layer 2 switching, like Linkras radio systems, pre-amble and IFG data is stripped from the incoming data stream and, instead of this header, a shorter trail sequence is added and transmitted over the radio link. At the far end network interface, the preamble and IFG bytes are re-inserted into the data stream by the radio equipment.

Layer 1 Throughput
By quoting throughputs at Layer 1, vendors intentionally include preamble and IFG in their figures, leading to inflated results for smaller frame sizes. It represents a classic example of how specsmanship is employed to pump up performance figures. Figure 2 below shows the difference between claimed Layer 1 throughput from a leading radio vendor, and the measured Layer 2 throughput. For larger frame sizes the difference is small, but for 64 byte frames the difference is enormous a measured Layer 2 throughput of 30.4 Mbit/s is actually advertised as being 40 Mbit/s! Figure 2. Claimed Layer 1 versus Measured Layer 2 Throughput

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 64 128 256 512

Frame size

Throughput

Measured L2 throughput Claimed layer 1 throughput

1024

1280

1512

LINKRA S.r.l. a socio unico Gruppo COMPEL ELECTRONICS S.p.A. C.F. / R.I. 02441450968 - VAT 02441450968 - R.E.A. MI 1455940 - Capitale Sociale 95.000,00 i. v.

ISO 9001-2000

White paper
To further compound the spin, vendors then quote this Layer 1, 64 bytes frame size throughput (rounded up of course) as being the maximum platform capacity, ie: 40 Mbit/s, with no qualification. You may even see figures as high as 40 Mbit/s, which is achieved by adding in the radio overhead for FEC, management and aux channels, giving the additional 10 Mbit/s, all with the aim to make the quoted figure as high as possible. Who knows, maybe soon we will see claims of 50 Mbit/s! RFC 2544 was used for the measured Layer 2 throughput in Figure 2 above. Linkra uses RFC 2544 testing to validate the performance of all its Ethernet products.

LINKRA WIDHOP 900 IP System Throughput

Similarly, it is possible to make an evaluation of these concepts with Linkra system WIDHOP 900 IP: in particular with the net MAC Rate (transmission rate considering only The MAC Bytes transmitted in a second) and the layer 1 Throughput.

Net MAC rate available(Mbps) versus layer 1 throughput @frame size=64 and 1500 bytes
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 4QAM 16QAM 64QAM 256QAM
L2 56MHz@64 L1 56MHz@64 L2 56MHz@1500 L1 56Mhz @1500

Standardized Throughput Testing

So how can you verify equipment performance in a standardized way that allows equal comparison of vendor claims? The answer is the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) document RFC 2544. This defines a specific set of tests that vendors should use to measure and report the performance characteristics of network devices. The results of these tests are designed to provide the customer with comparable data from different vendors with which to evaluate their devices. RFC 2544 testing is supported by most professional Ethernet test equipment.

LINKRA S.r.l. a socio unico Gruppo COMPEL ELECTRONICS S.p.A. C.F. / R.I. 02441450968 - VAT 02441450968 - R.E.A. MI 1455940 - Capitale Sociale 95.000,00 i. v.

ISO 9001-2000

White paper

Higher Throughputs
So now, some vendors are claiming 800, and even 900 Mbit/s throughputs. How do they achieve that? The secret here is that this requires two radio links running in parallel, effectively doubling the link capacity. This is a standard microwave technique and is made even more effective utilizing radio techniques such as XPIC (Cross Pol Interference Cancellation). However, the network interface provided usually consists of two GigE interfaces (one each 400/450 Mbit/s RF link). These radios usually require an external Ethernet switch to combine the traffic from both links into a single virtual high capacity link.

Summary
Some vendors inflate the actual throughput over a radio link by as much as 20-30%, even though all radios employ similar methods to package and transport data. Physics dictates that there is no free lunch, meaning that if someone is claiming dramatically better performance then you should really check the fine print!

Five Questions to ask your Radio Vendor

1. Does your stated throughput include radio overhead like FEC, etc? Linkra: Yes. 2. What channel bandwidth is required to support this throughput, and is it available in the frequency band I am considering? Linkra: 3.5 up to 56 MHz channels bandwidth are available in each frequency band ( 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.5, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 38 GHz) 2. 3. 4. Is the throughput achieved in a single radio channel (ie: using one RF unit or ODU)? Linkra: Yes and it is Full duplex (both directions) Are the stated throughput figures measured or theoretical? Linkra: Measured. Are the throughputs for Layer 1 (with pre-amble and IFG) or Layer 2 (without pre- amble and IFG)? Linkra: in layer, 1 Throughput preamble and IFG are included, for L2 it is reported as NET MAC Rate (transmission rate considering only The MAC Bytes transmitted in a second). What frame size is the throughput figure based upon, and how does this compare to my intended application? Linkra: Tests for limit cases at 64 and 1500 bytes frame size are reported in relevant technical literature.

5.

Bibliography
Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices RFC 2544 RFC 2544 Testing of Ethernet Services in Telecom Networks Agilent Technologies Benchmarking wireless ethernet throughput Arris-Stratex 1-30-2008

LINKRA S.r.l. a socio unico Gruppo COMPEL ELECTRONICS S.p.A. C.F. / R.I. 02441450968 - VAT 02441450968 - R.E.A. MI 1455940 - Capitale Sociale 95.000,00 i. v.

ISO 9001-2000