2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics
"Gurtov Andrei " <andrei.gurtov@sonera.com> Wed, 21 November 2001 07:05 UTC
Delivery-Date: Mon Jan 28 09:04:15 2002
Delivery-Date: Wed Nov 21 02:11:04 2001
Delivery-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:11:04 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Subject: 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:05:02 +0200
Message-Id: <C6A53DA7BC39804F8599A725360914087157E5@ASSI.eur.soneragroup.net>
Thread-Topic: 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics
Thread-Index: AcFyWrGoBjjfUtzWEdWORgAAOWOFFw==
From: Gurtov Andrei <andrei.gurtov@sonera.com>
To: pilc@grc.nasa.gov
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lombok-fi.lerc.nasa.gov id CAA06984
Sender: owner-pilc@grc.nasa.gov
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 5962
Lines: 132
Hi, Please find below a suggested version for Section 2 of 2.5g3g draft. -Andrei 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics 2.1 Data rates The main incentive for transition from 2G to 2.5G to 3G is the increased data rates for the users. 2.5G systems have data rates of 10-20 kbps in uplink and 10-40 kbps in downlink. 3G systems are expected to have bit rates around 64 kbps in uplink and 384 kbps in downlink. Considering the resulting bandwidth-delay product of around 1-5KB for 2.5G and 8-50 KB for 3G, 2.5G links belong to LTNs, and 3G approach LFNs. For good TCP performance both LFNs and LTNs require maintaining a large enough window. For LFNs it is needed to utilize the available network bandwidth. LTNs need a larger window than required for 'filling the pipe' to avoid retransmission timeouts in presence of packet losses. This document recommends only standard-level mechanism suitable both for LTNs and LFNs, and to any network in general. However, suggested experimental mechanisms can be targeted either for LFN [1] or LTN [n1]. The data rates are dynamic due to other users and mobility. Arriving and departing users can reduce or increase the available bandwidth a cell. Traveling to a longer distance from the base station decreases the link bandwidth due to worse link quality. Finally, the user can move to a cell with less or more of available bandwidth. When a connection changes from a slow to fast cell, it can underutilize the available bandwidth, since in congestion avoidance phase TCP increases the sending rate slowly. Changing from a fast to slow cell is handled well by TCP due to self-clocking mechanism. However, a large TCP window used in a faster cell can create the overbuffering problem in the slower cell. 2.2 Asymmetry 2.5G/3G systems have built in asymmetry in uplink and downlink data rates. The uplink data rate is limited by the battery power consumption and complexity limitations of mobile terminals. However, the asymmetry does not exceed 3-6 times, and can be tolerated by TCP without need for congestion control or filtering for ACKs [n2]. 2.3 Latency The latency of 2.5G/3G links is very high due to FEC and processing delays. A typical RTT varies between half a second to one second. The high latency of 2.5G/3G links is not of fundamental nature, like in satellite links due to finite light speed, but it is unlikely to be radically lowered. However, it can be reduced by clever design and engineering of the system. The static latency of 2.5G/3G links can be further increased by the radio resource allocation delay. For example, the user is allocated a timeslot in GPRS and a scrambling code in UMTS. GPRS releases timeslots shortly after a transmission; UMTS users can keep the codes longer, but the allocation also takes longer time. The resource allocation delay has an effect of increasing the RTT on the partly utilized link. Until the interval between packet arrivals to the link is less than the resource release timer, the resource allocation is triggered on every RTT. Keeping the radio resource for the time equal to link RTT could avoid this problem. 2.4 Delay spikes 2.5G/3G links are likely to experience delay spikes exceeding the typical RTT by several times due to following reasons. (1) A long delay spike can be a result of link layer recovery from a link outage due to temporal loss of radio coverage for example while driving into a tunnel or stepping into an elevator. (2) During a handover the mobile terminal may have to perform some time-consuming actions before data can be transmitted in a new cell. Many W-WANs in such a case try to provide seamless mobility that is internally re-route packets from the old to the new base station at the expense of additional delay. (3) Blocking by high-priority traffic may occur when an arriving circuit-switch call or higher priority data user temporally preempts the radio channel. Delay spikes can cause spurious TCP timeouts and unnecessary retransmissions. 2.5 Error losses In general, 2.5G/3G systems have low rate of error losses thanks to link-level retransmissions. Justification for link layer ARQ is discussed in [9], [11]. In general, the link layer ARQ and FEC can provide a packet service with a negligibly small probability of undetected error (failure of the link CRC), and a low level of loss (non-delivery) for the upper layer traffic, i.e. IP. The loss rate of IP packets is low due to the ARQ, but the recovery in layer two appears as jitter to the higher layers. 2.6 Intersystem handovers It is likely that 3G systems will be used as a 'hot spot' technology while 2.5G systems will provide lower speed data service on the rest of territory. This brings the environment where a mobile user can roam between 2.5G and 3G networks while keeping ongoing TCP connections. The inter-system handover is likely to trigger a high delay spike (Section 2.4) and can lead to large amount of data losses. Additional problems include context transfer, which is out of scope of this document but is addressed by the Seamoby WG [n3]. Intersystem handovers can cause performance problems for ongoing TCP connections as many features (e.g. window scaling) are negotiated at the connection establishment and cannot be changed later. This is especially a valid concern if some mechanism specific for LTN or LFN is implemented by TCP. References [n1] M. Allman (ed), S. Dawkins, D. Glover, J. Griner, D. Tran, T. Henderson, J. Heidemann, J. Touch, H. Kruse, S. Ostermann, K. Scott, J. Semke, "Ongoing TCP Researh Related to Satellites", RFC 2760, Feb. 2000. [n2] H. Balakrishnan, V. Padmanabhan, TCP Performance Implications of Network Asymmetry, draft-ietf-pilc-asym-07.txt, September 2001. Work in progress. [n3] J. Kempf, Problem Description: Reasons For Performing Context Transfers Between Nodes in an IP Access Network, draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfer-problem-stat-03.txt, October 2001. Work in progress.
- 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics Gurtov Andrei
- Re: 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics Aaron Falk
- RE: 2. 2.5G and 3G Link Characteristics Gurtov Andrei