2015 Small Cells Forum

AirRAN:
The Virtual Small Cell

Moti Bitter,
VP Products, Airspan Networks
 AirRAN “Virtual” RAN

Next Generation Radio Access Network Architecture

•  Airspan Radio Access Network (AirRAN)
•  Holistic Virtual RAN solution: V-RAN = Distributed RAN or Centralized RAN
•  same platform / same building blocks / same software…
•  “Small Cell centric” Software Architecture portable and vendor independent
•  Uses Multi-core Network Processors (multi-vendor)
•  For standalone MAC and V-RAN Blade Server
•  Several PHY interfaces from FAPI (aka nFAPI) to pure L1 PHY (I&Q)
•  Designed to be easy to port to PHY Blade Server
PHY IP interface
(nFAPI)

AirRAN eNodeBs can operate in one

of three modes: MAC
1.  Standalone: L1 PHY + L2/L3 MAC & L3
2.  Local Cluster: L1 PHY on Clients, L2/L3 Master
3.  Centralised Cluster: Local L1 PHY

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 2

 AirRAN Small Cell V-RAN Hardware Architecture
Network Clusters L1 Client L1 Client L1 Client #3 EPC, HSS, PCRF
and IMS

Remote clusters of eNodeBs running just

L1 (PHY) hosted by centralized L2/L3
Baseband server

Local V-RAN Clusters

L2/L3
L1 Client L1 Client Master
#2 Master eNodeB
has higher V-RAN L2/L3
performance Centralized Master
baseband (runs L2/ Baseband
L3 for cluster), L1 Blade Server
Clients regular S1 Interface
basebands

S1 Interface
Single eNodeB

Baseband “cost optimized” for

#1 for 1 or 2 carriers, or with
higher cost for 3/4 carriers
Multiple baseband options per
product.

S1 Interface

V-RAN Small Cells enable Standalone, Cluster and Centralized

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 3
 nFAPI: The Connectivity Advantage

•  2 CC CA LTE Configuration: TDD with 2x20 MHz CA, FC-2, SSF7

2x2 running 2x20 MHz CA CPRI nFAPI

Fiber / Ethernet Rate 10 Gbps 1 Gbps
Payload Rate ~6 Gbps ~0.3 Gbps
Latency Up to 250us ≤ 2 ms
Centralized-Pool HW Dedicated DSP General
Num. of cells per Fiber ring
1 ~15-30
(10 Gbps)
R-Units per blade 3-6 ~8-16 / 4

nFAPI requires 20 times less front-haul bandwidth

And works with 8 times higher latency
when comparing with CPRI C-RAN
Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. * Future - eCoMP 4
 2015 SoftBank Trial – Akihabara ,Tokyo

•  Adding street pole mounted Small Cells as a 2nd LTE

layer for the Macro deployment in a dense urban
area – Akihabara “Electric Town” Tokyo
•  using Smart Omni Antennas

Many thanks to SoftBank for allowing

us to share some of the results!
Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 5
 Outdoor Tests – CDF

•  Small Cells improves Throughput over Macro only

•  Directional
Outdoor is slightly No
Coverage betterLoad
than Omni

 Main  Inner  Streets  Throughput  CDF    

100%  
90%  
80%  
70%  
60%   Main Streets Avg.
CDF  

50%   Throughput
All  SCs  Omni  With  MCs  
40%   Macro Only
All  SCs  Direc>onal  With  MCs  
30%  
Macro  Only   Macro + Small Cells Omni
20%  
Macro + Small Cells
10%   Directional
41 43
0%  
1   6   11   16   21   26   31   36   41   46   51   56   61   66   71   76   81   86   91   96   101  106   27
Throughput  [Mbps]  

Main Streets
Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 6
 The Impact of V-RAN Small Cells: Outdoor

•  Based on Outdoor Drive Tests

•  Note: Macro cells have 26% no coverage

•  Dedicated channel utilizing 40 MHz

 Drive  Test  Data  (100%  load)  

100%   No eICIC
90%  

80%  
Dedicated  Channel  100%  Load  
 CoMP    ON  
70%  

60%  
Dedicated  Channel  100%  Load  
CDF  

50%    CoMP    OFF  

40%  

30%   Macro  Only  100%  Load  

20%  

10%  

0%  
0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55   60   65   70   75   80   85   90   95   100   105   110  
Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. Throughput  [Mbps]   7
 The Impact of V-RAN Small Cells: Outdoor

•  Based on Outdoor Drive Tests

•  Note: Macro cells have 26% no coverage

•  Co-channel utilizing 20 MHz

•  CoMP improves the results by 380% for Co-Channel
 Drive  Test  Data  (100%  load)  
100%   No eICIC
90%  

80%  
Co  Channel  100%  Load  
 CoMP    ON  
70%  

60%  
Co  Channel  100%  Load  
CDF  

50%    CoMP    OFF  

40%  

30%   Macro  Only  100%  Load  

20%  

10%  

0%  
0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55   60   65   70   75   80   85   90   95   100   105   110  
Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. Throughput  [Mbps]   8
 The Impact of V-RAN Small Cells: Network Capacity

•  Tested across the full area

•  400% higher capacity compared to Macro only
by using V-RAN Small Cells with CoMP and
eICIC

Network Aggregated Capacity (Mbps)

500
450 461
435
400
408 x4
350 379
300
304
250 293
200
150
100
109
50
0
Macro Only Dedicated Channel Co-Channel Co-Channel w.eICIC

No CoMP (3GPP CoMP) Macro Only

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 9

 The Impact of V-RAN Small Cells: Indoor

•  Indoor shows 600% gain compared to

Macro only; and (50-100)% compared to
Macro + Small Cells (without CoMP)

Indoor Throughput Gain [Mbps] 3 1

Macros Only Macros + Small Cells CoMP ON
75.2
72.7

62.3

48.7

36
x6
35.1 34.6
4
29.7
2
12.1 10.2 8.8
5.1

1 2 3 4

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 10

 Conclusions – The value of nFAPI V-RAN Small Cells

•  Rooftop Macro Cells cannot provide an adequate capacity or

coverage
•  In high frequency bands like 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz
•  After model tuning Coverage and Capacity can be accurately predicted
•  Heterogeneous Networks are the solution to Dense Urban
Networks
•  An underlay of Small Cells can complete the required coverage at street level and
indoor locations even in higher frequency bands:
•  Small Cell can be used for coverage infill purposes in areas where macro cell
layer signal is too low
•  Small Cells densification increase network capacity, especially in hot spot
locations.
•  Small Cell gain compared to Macro only presented almost 400% outdoor gain
and ~400% indoor gain
•  Heterogeneous Networks Preferred Approach:
•  Shared Channel approach should be preferred. It appears that the wider spectrum
availability of the shared channel approach outperforms its higher interference level

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 11

 Conclusions – The value of nFAPI V-RAN Small Cells

•  Intra Small Cell Layer Interference Mitigation – CoMP

•  CoMP proved to be a very effective solution for interference mitigation between Small
Cells
•  CoMP Aggregate Capacity Gain in Outdoor Locations observed:
•  400% compared to Macro
•  Outdoor Cell Edge CoMP Gain observed: 250% compared to Small Cells with no CoMP
•  CoMP Indoor Gain observed:
•  600% compared to Macro
•  Centralized CoMP:
•  Centralized CoMP based on pooling L2 processing and distributed L1 processing
proved to be as efficient as pooling L1 and L2 processing using CPRI fronthaul
interface

•  Inter Small Cell – Macro Interference Mitigation – eICIC

•  Time Domain eICIC is an effective way to mitigate interference between small cell
layer and macro cell layer.
•  The results indicated a potential gain of eICIC in both average capacity (15%) and
cell edge performance (45%)

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 12

 AirRAN: Airspan’s Virtual Small Cell

2015 Winners

Copyright 2015 AIRSPAN NETWORKS INC. 13