Improving Microwave Capacity: Aviat Advanced Microwave Technology Seminar

AVIAT ADVANCED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY SEMINAR
IMPROVING MICROWAVE CAPACITY

U N D E R S TA N D I N G T E C H N I Q U E S TO I M P R O V E T H R O U G H P U T
microwave
is just a big pipe
you get out what you put in
I canna change the laws o physics captain
How to Understand Vendor Capacity Claims?

It is getting increasingly harder to
compare capacity claims from

various vendors
Multiple techniques are being
employed to boost throughput figures

We will attempt to explain the various
techniques and how they impact

capacity
AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
How can you get more data through the pipe?
how do you get more data

through the pipe?
AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011
Strategies for Increasing Microwave Capacities
More Spectral
Eciency
(More Bits per Hz)
Technique
Technique
Higher Modula6on Levels
Wider Channels
Adap6ve Modula6on
Mul6ple channels with link

aggrega6on (incl. CCDP)
Reduced FEC Redundancy
More Spectrum
(More Hz)
More Eec5ve
Throughput
(More Data per Bit)
Technique
Header Op6miza6on/
Suppression/Compression
Payload Compression
Asymmetric Opera6on
get a bigger pipe!
Get acan
How
Bigger
you Pipe!
get more data through the pipe?
Use Wider Channels

6 GHz
30 MHz
70-90 GHz
11 GHz
40 MHz
5 GHz
60 GHz
250 MHz
18 GHz
80 MHz
23 GHz
50 MHz
use more efficient schemes

Get acan
How
Bigger
you Pipe!
get more data through the pipe?
to pack more data into the pipe
Increasing Modulation Level

Improves bits/Hz efficiency within the
same channel size
Diminishing capacity improvement with

every higher modulation step
Much lower system gain - shorter hops,

larger antennas
Much higher sensitivity to interference
Incremental
Capacity Gain
4 (QPSK)
50%
16
33%
32
25%
difficult link coordination, reduced link

density
64
20%
128
17%
Increased phase noise and linearity
256
14%
increased design complexity cost
512
13%
1024
10
11%
2048
11
10%
Should be deployed with ACM to offset

lower system gain
10
Modula6on Bits/Symbol
Level (QAM) Bits/s/Hz
35%
20
40%
15
45%
10
50%
55%
11
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
System Gain, dB
25
Carrier to Interference Ratio (C/I), dB
30%
2048QAM
30
1024QAM
25%
512QAM
35
256QAM
20%
128QAM
40
64QAM
15%
32QAM
45
16QAM
10%
8QAM
Capacity Increase
Higher Modulation = More Capacity, but
Applying Adaptive Modulation

AM/ACM allows higher order modulations to be employed, but
mitigate the adverse effects

Modulation rate/capacity adapts to increase system gain
when needed
Fixed modulation links can be upgraded to ACM to:
1. Increase link capacity
2. Decrease antenna size, and so tower rental costs
3. Increase link availability
4. Or, a combination of 1+2+3
12
Forward Error Correction (FEC)

Typical Radio Frame
NMS
Bytes reserved for radio

link and network
management informa6on
13
PAYLOAD
FEC
FEC bytes enable radio to

correct a limited number of
bit errors, increasing
receiver performance
Forward Error Correction

Typical Radio Frame
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
Light FEC
NMS
PAYLOAD
Increased Payload =
Higher Throughput
14
FEC
Less FEC
= Decreased
System Gain
Strong Forward Error Correction

Typical Radio Frame
NMS
Light FEC
NMS
PAYLOAD
Decreased Payload
PAYLOAD
= Lower Throughput
FEC
More FEC =
Beaer System
Gain
Strong FEC
NMS
15
PAYLOAD
FEC
FEC
use more than one pipe

Use more than one pipe
16
Link Aggregation using IEEE 802.1AX

The most common legacy link aggregation
approach (originally defined in IEEE 802.3ad)

802.1AX cannot dynamically redistribute traffic
P2
P4
P3
P5
P4
P3
P5
P4
P6
P5
DPP1
RAC 60
RAC 60
DPP1
P3
P1
DAC GE3
P4
P2
RAC 60
DPP2
P5
P3
RAC 60
DPP1
P3
P4
DAC GE3
P4
P5
RAC 60
DPP2
P5
P6
DAC GE3
DPP2
DPP1
RAC 60
RAC 60
4+0 Link
CCDP/XPIC
or
ACAP
DAC GE3
DPP2
Eclipse INU/INUe
RAC 60
Module
P3
load for optimal utilization of available links
LAG
P1
Switch/Router
17
Supports
this
Eclipse INU/INUe
Module
Module
Module
Designed
for this
Switch/Router
Layer 1 Link Aggregation (L1 LA)

Unique and Aviat patented radio link aggregation scheme designed to address
limitations of the traditional 802.1AX approach

Uniform load balancing even for ACM links and carriers of different capacities
High utilization and low added overhead
Carrier-grade convergence and recovery from individual link failures (<50 msec)
Layer 2 (802.1AX) Domain
P4
P3
DPP1
RAC 60
RAC 60
DPP1
P3
P1
DAC GE3
P4
P2
RAC 60
DPP2
P5
DAC GE3
P5
DPP2
RAC 60
P3
DPP1
RAC 60
RAC 60
DPP1
P3
P4
DAC GE3
P4
P5
RAC 60
RAC 60
DPP2
P5
P6
P3
Module
P3
P2
LAG
P1
LAG
Module
L1LA Domain
P6
Switch/Router
18
P4
P5
DAC GE3
DPP2
Eclipse INU/INUe
Eclipse INU/INUe
Module
P5
Stacking
Module
4+0 Link
P4
Switch/Router
Comparing Link Aggregation Options

LAG 802.1AX
L1 LA
Medium
High
Easy capacity expansion
Yes
Yes
Latency
High
Low
No
Yes
Load balancing Eec6veness
Adap6ve to RF
L1LA is the ideal solution for N+0 links

19
only send the data

that you need
Only send the data that you need through the pipe
20
through the pipe
Using Ethernet Optimization

Using common Ethernet optimization
and compression techniques:

Ethernet Frame Suppression
MAC Header Compression
Multi-Layer Header Compression
Payload Compression
Send only needed data over the radio
link. Suppress or compress

everything else
Asymmetric link operation
21
Ethernet Frame Header Optimization
Inter-frame Gap
and Preamble
Removal
MAC Header
Compression
!
22
Throughput Improvement
23
Header Suppression Throughput Improvement

Frame
Size
24
Standard Frame
IFG & Preamble

& MAC header
IFG & Preamble
Frame
Space
Mbps
Frame
Space
Mbps
Increase
Frame
Space
Mbps
Increase
64
84
76.2
68
94.1
24%
58
110.3
45%
128
148
86.5
132
97.0
12%
122
104.9
21%
260
280
92.9
264
98.5
6%
254
102.4
10%
512
522
96.2
516
99.2
3%
506
101.2
5%
1518
1538
98.7
1522
99.7
1%
1512
100.4
2%
Multi-Layer Header Compression

AKA Packet Throughput Boost, Enhanced Packet Compression Layer
1/2/3/4 Header Compression or Deep Ethernet header compression

Adds compression of IPv4/v6 header address bytes
Still highly dependent upon payload traffic type and frame size
25
Payload Compression
Some microwave vendors are employing common
compression techniques
Pros
Replaces strings of repeated patterns of data
Promises dramatic throughput improvement (2.5x), with no additional
spectrum requirement
Cons
Improvement is not guaranteed nor predictable, since it is highly
dependent on the traffic mix

Increased link latency
Most data traffic is already compressed
Typical real-world improvement is minimal (~4%)
Payload compression has not been generally adopted in
the industry
26
Asymmetric Link Operation

Proposal to configure links with lower capacity upstream than
downstream
Assumes downstream traffic is much higher volume than upstream, and
that backhaul links can be similarly dimensioned

Claimed benefits are higher downstream speeds and frequency savings
(upstream)
27
IN CONCLUSION
Beware common tactics to inflate throughput

Present throughput figures based upon 64 byte frame
sizes only
When it comes to
Microwave Capacity
Assume that up to 100% (or a large proportion) of traffic is
compressible
Assume availability of very wide channels (80 MHz)
Assume 2+0 co-channel operation on the same frequency
assignment (using XPIC)

Present half-duplex throughput figures
Include non-payload overhead (NMS, FEC)
Assume gains from other unproven techniques
Test, using an industry standard benchmark - RFC 2544

29
Best Case Throughput 80 MHz channel

Throughput figures are stated in Mbit/s and are approximate for a
single 80MHz RF channel and 256QAM (unless otherwise stated)
1024QAM
Payload
Compression
2000
Guaranteed throughput
Maximum Best Efforts throughput
2+0
XPIC
64 byte frame size, ideal traffic profile
1040
Airlink
340
30
Strong
FEC
360
2500
IFG+PA
Suppression
MAC HC
450
520
360
360
720
720*
* + Latency
900
Realistic Throughput 30 MHz channel

Throughput figures are stated in Mbit/s and are approximate for a
single 30MHz RF channel and 256QAM (unless otherwise stated)
Guaranteed throughput
Maximum throughput
1024QAM
For 260 bytes average frame sizes, and

typical traffic profile
2+0
XPIC
Airlink
180
31
Strong
FEC
190
IFG+PA
Suppression
MAC HC
201
209
190
+6%
190
+4%
Payload
Compression
544
+25%
418
435
380
380*
* + Latency
+4%
475
Capacity Improvements Hype and Availability

Hype Factor
Availability
Medium
6-12 months
Strong FEC
Low
Now
ACM
Low
Now
Aggregated Mul6-Channel
Low
Now
Trac Op6miza6on
High
Now
Payload Compression
High
Now
Asymmetrical Opera6on
High
??
Higher Modula6on
32
AVIATNETWORKS.COM

Improving Microwave Capacity: Aviat Advanced Microwave Technology Seminar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Microwave Capacity: Aviat Advanced Microwave Technology Seminar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AVIAT ADVANCED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY SEMINAR

IMPROVING MICROWAVE CAPACITY

you get out what you put in

I canna change the laws o physics captain

How to Understand Vendor Capacity Claims?

compare capacity claims from

employed to boost throughput figures

techniques and how they impact

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

How can you get more data through the pipe?

how do you get more data

AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

Strategies for Increasing Microwave Capacities

Higher Modula6on Levels

Mul6ple channels with link

Reduced FEC Redundancy

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

get a bigger pipe!

AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

Use Wider Channels

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

use more efficient schemes

to pack more data into the pipe

AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

Increasing Modulation Level

Diminishing capacity improvement with

Much lower system gain - shorter hops,

Much higher sensitivity to interference

difficult link coordination, reduced link

Increased phase noise and linearity

increased design complexity cost

Should be deployed with ACM to offset

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Carrier to Interference Ratio (C/I), dB

Higher Modulation = More Capacity, but

Applying Adaptive Modulation

mitigate the adverse effects

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Forward Error Correction (FEC)

Bytes reserved for radio

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

FEC bytes enable radio to

Forward Error Correction

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Strong Forward Error Correction

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

use more than one pipe

AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

Link Aggregation using IEEE 802.1AX

approach (originally defined in IEEE 802.3ad)

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

load for optimal utilization of available links

Layer 1 Link Aggregation (L1 LA)

limitations of the traditional 802.1AX approach

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Comparing Link Aggregation Options

Easy capacity expansion

Load balancing Eec6veness

L1LA is the ideal solution for N+0 links

AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

only send the data

AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011