SON Manager Concept with interaction and interoperability of SON features

Abstract: With the increasing deployment of self-organizing network (SON) technology, it is likely that multiple SON features or multiple algorithms targeting a single SON feature will operate in parallel in the system. Potential conflicts could occur due to the interplay of these SON features. In this paper, we present a SON manager concept to address both interaction and interoperability of SON features. The main functions of the manager are described and examples are given for multi-parameter and multi-objective SON features coordination. Our SON manager specializes in managing processes especially when one or more antenna based SONs are involved.

2011 Reverb Networks, Inc

1. Introduction Self-organizing network (SON), i.e. a network that automatically adapts its settings to the dynamic environment, is a promising solution for operators to achieve many benefits such as OPEX and CAPEX reduction, network performance and efficiency improvement, system quality enhancement, etc. 3GPP and NGMN have defined and studied a multitude of SON use cases in three categories of self-organization: self-configuration, self-optimization and self-healing. For each use case, several solutions can be developed based upon different control parameters. Operators may want to implement more than one solution due to the limitations of each individual approach. For example, both tilt-based and handover parameter based solutions may be needed to achieve a single SON objective of load-balancing, causing potential conflicts. Therefore, a SON management mechanism is required to mitigate the conflicts and coordinate the interaction of such SON features. Another case is that, with the increasing deployment of SON techniques, it is highly possible that multiple SON features will operate in parallel in the system. Conflicts could occur when they are trying to modify the same set of parameters in order to achieve different objectives or when parameters affected by some features are inputs to other features. Such conflicts and interactions between SON features will result in sub-optimal network performance and degraded user experience unless a management mechanism is in place to control and monitor the interoperability of multiple SON features. In section 2, we will describe in detail the interaction and interoperability of SON features. Section 3 introduces a SON manager concept to coordinate and ensure combined benefits of individual SON features, followed by the conclusion in section 4. 2. Description 2.1 Interaction of SON features SON solutions can be developed based upon different control parameters. For example, antenna parameters such as tilt can be used to develop the antennabased SON solutions, while the parameter-based SON achieves its goals by adjusting other parameters e.g. handover parameters. Both antenna-based and parameter-based SON solutions can be applied to solve a particular SON use case. However, parameter-based SON is often associated with an inevitable degradation of service quality particularly when optimizing Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147 2

coverage and capacity as it modifies the cell coverage virtually through system level parameters changes. For example in load-balancing, parameter-based SON adjusts the handover offsets so that users are pushed to other cells with low received SINR values and compromised service qualities. The QoS issue can be avoided in antenna-based SON as it alters tilt, the most effective parameter in shaping cell coverage. Therefore in general, antenna-based SON is more desirable than parameter based SON for coverage optimization features. Note that one requirement of antenna-based SON is that it needs remote control mechanisms such as remote electrical tilt (RET) available at corresponding network elements and there is a limitation on the range of antenna adjustments. Antenna-based SON solutions are often preferred. However, due to the complex network environment and optimization preferences, operators may want to implement more than one approach for a specific SON feature. Possible scenarios include: a. In dense urban areas, parameter-based SON may not have the QoS issue due to large overlap between cells. Both antenna-based and parameterbased SON could be deployed in such environments for better performance. b. With the continuous growth in data demand, small cells e.g. micro, pico and femto cells are expected to be widely used to increase spectral efficiency and extend coverage/capacity. The coexistence of multiple types of base stations will result in heterogeneous networks where RET antenna systems may not be applicable at some base stations. Thus parameter-based SON is more effective in such situations. c. For a large network with hundreds of base stations, optimized tilt values may not be achieved at all base stations. In this case, one should try the antenna-based optimization first, followed by the parameter-based method if needed. Figure 1 shows two examples of multi-parameter SON features. To fulfill the goal of load-balancing, both tilt and handover offsets can be adjusted. Similarly, both tilt-based method and Modulation & Coding Schemes (MCS) based method can be deployed to compensate cell outages.

Load-balancing

Self-healing

Features Parameters
Antenna tilt Handover offset Antenna tilt Modulation and coding schemes

Figure 1. Multi-parameter SON features

Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147

With the rapid development of SON technology, it is likely that more solutions will emerge based upon various configuration parameters. As long as these parameter centric solutions are developed separately targeting the same optimization objective, a SON management mechanism is required to control, coordinate and monitor the simultaneous operations of these algorithms. 2.2 Interoperability of SON features Multiple SON features will be supported in future networks. For example, loadbalancing, interference reduction, neighbor list optimization, and handover optimization may be needed and be operating concurrently in the system. Optimization algorithms are developed separately for these features, without taking into account the effects on each other, resulting in potential conflicts between them. The conflicts may occur in these cases: a. Multiple SON features are trying to modify the same set of parameters. For example in figure 2, as a key RF parameter, antenna tilt is likely to be used by various SON features such as load-balancing, interference reduction, self-healing etc. The requested new values of tilt could be different in magnitude as well as in direction, i.e. tilt is requested to be increased by a feature (e.g. load-balancing) while another feature (e.g. interference reduction) wants it to be decreased; , the features are aiming at optimizing different objectives.

Features

Load-Balancing

Self-Healing

Interference Reduction

Parameters

Antenna tilt

Figure 2. Multi-objective SON features b. Parameters influenced by some features are monitored along with inputs to other features, causing improper reactions and counteraction of each other. For example in parameter-based load-balancing, handover offsets are adjusted so that users are handed over from overloaded cells to their lightly loaded neighbors. The detection of corresponding increase of radio link failure ratio, a KPI monitored by handover optimization, may trigger the algorithm to decrease key handover parameters e.g. the hysteresis, and push the users back to the overloaded cells. In this case the handover parameters modified by load-balancing and handover optimization features are different, but conflict occurs as they both affect the handover process between neighboring cells. Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147 4

In either case, the original objectives of SON features are not fulfilled and network performance is compromised. If possible, a single solution would be developed to jointly optimize the related SON features. Alternatively, a mechanism taking into account the dependencies of these features will minimize such conflicts and coordinate the interoperability of SON features. In either case, a SON management function is required. 3. The Reverb SON Manager concept A carefully designed control and management mechanism is required to address the interaction and interoperability of SON features. The SOCRATES project proposed a SON Coordinator concept to manage the interoperability of different SON features. The framework includes four functions: policy, alignment, guard and autognostics functions. As the central part of SON Coordinator, the alignment function detects and resolves the conflicts via Arbitration and Activation sub-functions while others are responsible for operator specific policies, unexpected network behavior and various data collections. In this document, we present the Reverb SON Manager concept to handle both interaction and interoperability of SON features. The main functions are listed below: a. Schedule different SON features by taking various actions including Decide when to start and stop a SON process Pause a SON process until certain conditions are met Choose to run algorithms in serial or parallel Prioritize different SON features Determine algorithms running time b. Transfer data/KPIs/messages/commands between SON features c. Apply rules/policies to modifications. The SON Manager checks if there are potential conflicts between the modifications generated by different SON processes. If a conflict is detected, several actions might be taken: Accept one modification only and suppress the other(s) Warn the algorithms involved about the conflict and get them to recalculate their modification values Inform the algorithms involved about the modifications of other parties and ask about their acceptability The SON Manager can also act as a communication link that enables different algorithms to communicate with each other. Our SON Manager specializes in managing SON processes especially when one or more antenna-based SON features are involved. Figure 3 shows how antenna based and parameter based SONs are handled in parallel. The manager monitors Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147 5

and controls (start/stop, pause/resume, etc.) the processes based upon their outputs as well as network performance. Actions are taken depending on which SON processes are running and their interrelations.
Antenna Based SONs Monitor/ Control

SON Manager

Monitor/ Control

Parameter Based SONs

Figure 3. Combination of antenna based and parameter based SONs For example, if two SON processes target one problem or tightly related problems, the following steps can be taken: Run one process and pause the other until the first process finishes one or more closed cycles. The definition of the cycle can be as granular as one small parameter change with enough time to monitor the effect or large to include multiple parameter changes. Pause the first process and run the second for one closed cycle If the problem is solved at any time, the SON Manager will stop the whole process. If one of the processes is degrading, or at least not enhancing, the performance, it will be paused or stopped. The manager may resume or restart a process if it detects that there is room for enhancement in network performance. The Reverb SON Manager is able to address both interaction and interoperability of SON features. Figure 4 illustrates how it will manage the coexistence of tiltbased and parameter-based load-balancing. The whole process begins with tilt modification. The manager will run the tilt-based load-balancing completely unless the tilt constraint is reached before the problem is solved; only then the handover parameter based load-balancing will be triggered. The reason for this scheme is that as noted above, tilt-based approach is preferred from a QoS perspective but may have limitations on adjustable tilt ranges.

Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147

Load balancing based on tilt

Problem resolved?

Stop

N
Tilt constraint reached?

Y
Load balancing based on handover offsets
Figure 4. Combination of antenna-based and parameter-based load-balancing Figure 5 shows an example of how SON Manager handles the simultaneous operation of highly related SON features. In each loop, the tilt-based loadbalancing will run for a small optimization cycle. The SON Manager will then evaluate the effects on network performance and run the automatic neighbor list (ANR) optimization. The iteration stops whenever the problem is resolved. The proposed mechanism takes into account that the tilt-based load-balancing works on a cycle that is much larger than the cycle of ANR optimization. A complete run of the tilt-based load-balancing iteration may disturb neighbor relations, requiring the ANR algorithm to be executed.

Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147

Load balancing based on tilt, one small cycle

Automatic neighbor list

Problem resolved?

Stop

Figure 5. Combination of load-balancing and automatic neighbor list

4. Conclusion It is highly likely that a multitude of SON features will be implemented in future networks. The interaction and interoperability of SON features need to be analyzed, monitored and coordinated since solutions are developed independently without taking into account the effects on each other. Potential conflicts occur when a feature is optimized through multiple algorithms and parameter changes (e.g. load-balancing based on tilt and handover offsets) or the same set of parameters are used by multiple SON features. The coexistence of highly related features may also cause problems, requiring a SON management and coordination mechanism to control the interrelations between SON features. In this document, we present a SON Manager concept to handle the interaction and interoperability of SON features, especially between antenna-based and parameter-based SONs. SON Manager is able to schedule, monitor and control different algorithms and features, considering their properties and interrelations. Algorithms and features can be arranged in sequence with different cycles and priorities depending on various factors e.g. the preference of antenna-based SON from a QoS perspective and different optimization cycles between antenna-based and parameter-based SONs. The proposed SON Manager is essential to mitigate the conflicts and ensure optimized network performance.

Reverb Networks, Inc. 20099 Ashbrook Place, Suite 105, Ashburn, VA 20147