CDMA 2000: 1xEVDO and 1xEVDV, An Overview

Vivek P. Mhatre
04/13/04 Talk for EE 647
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Presentation Outline
Objective: To provide an overview of networking-related aspects of CDMA Data networks CDMA Basics CDMA-HDR, i.e., IS-856 or 1xEVDO Forward link: Rate Control Reverse link: Power Control 1xEVDV Recent Work Research Challenges Will focus on: MAC, Scheduling, Power Control, Rate Control Will not talk about: Signaling, Modulation techniques, Coding schemes
2

CDMA Basics
Orthogonal (or pseudo-orthogonal) spreading code per user Transmitter multiplies the signal by the code before transmission Correlation receiver: received signal multiplied by the same spreading code, demodulation Chip duration much smaller than symbol duration Robust against multi-path fading, interference and jamming E.g. codes: Walsh codes
++ ++ ++ ++++

CDMA Basics (contd.)

Perfect orthogonality not possible due to channel variations Interference limited capacity i = P i Gi + j=i Pj Gj

Ri = W log(1 + i ) All about Power control and Rate control!!! Reverse link power control to counter near-far eect

BS N
4

IS-95
First CDMA system Mainly for voice One CDMA code per user on forward and reverse link Forward and reverse links separated in frequency Limited data rate (64 Kbps)

1xEVDO or IS-856 or CDMA-HDR

1xEVDO stands for 1xRTT (Radio Transmission Technology) EVolution to Data Only Qualcomm Inc. was the driving force Need to get ahead of other players Quick deployment Philosophy: Do not tamper with the spectrum allocated to voice trac of IS-95 Use separate spectrum for data trac Use CDMA for data communication as well Forward and reverse links separated in frequency Resources available to the base station on the forward link A set of orthogonal codes (64 per sector) Base station transmit power (PT )
6

1xEVDO (contd.)
FLa as perceived by each user is time-varying Question: For a given user, to achieve the same average rate, R, should the BS use power control or rate control on FL? Assume linear model for rate vs SINR P0 g Rate Control: R = K I R I Power Control: P = Kg R 1 P0 = KE g I = RE I P K g P = E[X]E[1/X] 1 P0

P P0 Rate Control better than power control

a FL

= Forward Link, RL = Reverse Link

1xEVDO (contd.)
In reality, R varies as log(SINR), not linearly Answer: For practical CDMA network settings (noise levels, path losses etc.) P /P0 1 Hence CDMA systems use a bunch of modulation schemes to adapt rate to the current channel state Conclusion: Rate control is better than power control on FL Use channel state feedback about FL from each user for rate control

Channel State Feedback: FL

Feedback about FL: FL is rate controlled
Inner Loop Rate Control FL pilot signal sent by BS, monitored by all active data users DRC (Data Rate Control) channel on RL (one code per active user) used by each user to indicate supportable FL rate and best sector Coarse adjustments of rate control Outer Loop Rate Control During actual packet receptions, measure PER, and request increase in data rate if P ERmeas < P ERtarget and vice-versa Fine adjustments of rate control

Channel State Feedback: RL

Unlike FL, RL is power controlled to counter the near-far eect Coarse power control RA (Reverse Activity) channel of FL used by BS to request user to / its rate depending on the total interference at the BS Objective: Keep the total interference level (load) at BS below a threshold T Maximum user transmit power, link budget analysis cell coverage area Fixed margin is alloted to in-cell interference Hence must ensure that intra-cell interference is below a threshold Slow, time averaged decisions over 128 slots On RL, power control dictates rate control
10

Channel State Feedback: RL (contd.)

Fine power control RL pilot signal sent by user on RL, monitored by BS RPC (Reverse Power Control) channel of FL used by BS to request user to / its power level (target PER 1%) Neighboring BSs also have a say Fast, every slot

11

Reverse Link Structure

RL

Traffic

ACK

RL Pilot

DRC

One CDMA code per channel per user Four CDMA codes per user on RL maximum 16 data users per sector (64 codes per sector) Plenty of overheads on RL just to optimize FL by providing fast and accurate channel state feedback!! 1xEVDV recties this (probably), since RL capacity of 1xEVDV is 10 times that of 1xEVDO
12

So far....
For FL: Rate control better than Power control For RL: Power control Near-far problem Maximum RL interference governed by link budget analysis Need channel feedback to tune FL rate and RL power Two loops of feedback (for FL rate, RL power) Considerable overheads of feedback on RL

13

1xEVDO FL in details
Question: How to serve multiple data users on FL? Answer: Opportunistic scheduling Philosophy: Serve the user with the best channel Since channel is time-varying for everyone, some user will be in good state with high probability Since we only serve good users, system throughput improves Everyone will be in good state some time or the other, so long term fairness issue solved Short term fairness can also be dealt with through appropriate modications

14

FL Opportunistic Scheduling, A Toy Problem

Total bandwidth B Channel state Good, p Channel state Bad, q Prop Fair Sharing User throughput System throughput (in general) (0.5B)0.8 0.8B pB User A 0.8 0.2 User B 0.8 0.2

Opp. Scheduling (0.8)(0.2)(B) + (0.8)(0.8)(0.5)(B) 0.96B (1 + q)pB

Conclusion: Choose the best user, and serve him at full rate Gains of opportunistic scheduling are better with more users, since higher probability of nding a good user In reality, channel (and hence the sustainable rate) varies over a range, not just good or bad
Ri = W log(1 + i )

Remarkably, the conclusion of the above toy problem still holds!

15

Opportunistic Scheduling (contd.)

General Problem: M users, measured SINR is i Allocate fraction i of power and fraction i of codes to user i Determine corresponding rate Ri Choose i and i in each time slot to maximize the system throughput Optimal solution (No user dierentiation): Choose single user agrmax(i ), and set i = i = 1 Conclusion: Choose the best user, and serve him at full rate and power

16

Opportunistic Scheduling (contd.)

Hence in CDMA-HDR, on FL, BS serves the best user with maximum power and maximum bandwidth (use all 64 codes) Essentially, FL is TDM!! No need to account for fading power margin as in IS-95, since only one data user served at a time, no voice users

Sector Tx Power
Unused margin

Sector Tx Power P (max)

TX

P (max)
TX

Control Channel

MAC Channel

Pilot Channel

Total Traffic Sync Channel Paging Channel Pilot Channel

IS95 FL

time
17

Total Traffic

IS856 FL

fraction of time

Performance of 1xEVDO
FL maximum bandwidth = 2.5 Mbps RL maximum bandwidth = 180 Kbps per user Maximum number of data users = 16 Soft hando of data users possible EOF

18

1xEVDV
1xEVDO 1xEVDV Data Voice frequency Movable boundary

Data

1xEVDV is not the next version of 1xEVDO Motorola and Ericsson are the key drivers Promises up to 3 Mbps on FL and 1.5 Mbps on RL Fundamentally dierent from 1xEVDO since voice and data integrated (same carrier) Upto 88% of channels (58 out of 64) for data Claim: Better adaptability to changing load (trac and voice)
19

1xEVDV (contd.)
Operating point for 1xEVDV MAX MAX

FL BS transmit power

Voice calls

Dynamic Operating Point

Overhead channels (static)

FL BS transmit power

Overhead channels (data)

Actualdata Channels

Walsh codes

MAX

Walsh codes

MAX

Simultaneous voice and data calls on the same carrier

20

1xEVDV (contd.)
No soft hando for data users Opportunistic scheduling on FL One or Two users served on FL simultaneously Improved ARQ Improved RL rate 1.5 Mbps Details to come out soon in Revision D EOF

21

Recent Work
Opportunistic scheduling over FL Qualcomms HDR algorithm Single user chosen for FL serving Maximize system utility over each time slot Utility function based opportunistic scheduling, [Xin Liu, Chong and
Shro]

Single user chosen for FL serving Resource sharing constraints A Utility function associated with each user Maximize long term system utility

22

Recent Work (contd.)

Opportunistic scheduling over FL (contd.) Opportunistic power scheduling for multiple-server systems,
[Jang-Won Lee, Mazumdar and Shro]

Maximize long term system utility Determine power allocation to users Multiple users could be chosen for FL service Opportunistic scheduling over multiple interfaces, [Kulkarni and
Rosenberg]

Multiple interfaces correspond to e.g. 802.11 interface, 3G link, satellite link etc. Joint scheduling to choose the best user for each interface

23

Recent Work (contd.)

RL power control and scheduling Power constrained RL scheduling [Kumaran and Qian] Some user terminals constrained by maximum transmit power Two classes of users: strong and weak Original RL power control aims to solve near-far (strong-weak) problem Conclusion: Weak users scheduled simultaneously, and strong users one at a time EOF

24

Research Challenges
My viewpoint: Inter-cell interference issues Law of large numbers on RL Law of small numbers on FL Co-ordination between multiple BSs dicult 1xEVDV, several research challenges Resource allocation is dicult since voice and data integrated Movable boundary problem in two dimensions: bandwidth (codes) and power Hard SINR requirements for voice power margin to overcome deep fades (IS-95 like) New technology brings new problems with it No dearth of problems!
25

Acknowledgments
Sunil Kulkarni and Aravind Iyer for useful discussions in MSEE 318 Sunil Kulkarni for providing several pointers, in particular 1xEVDV tutorial by Ericsson in Globecomm 2004 and [Kumaran and Qian] paper

26

References
Qualcomm Inc. website for white papers (1xEVDO) Motorola website for white papers (1xEVDV) 1xEVDV tutorial by Ericsson in Globecomm 2003 (provided by Sunil Kulkarni) CDMA/HDR: A Bandwidth-Ecient High-Speed Wireless Data Service for Nomadic Users, Bender et al. (Qualcomm Inc.) An Algorithm for Reverse Trac Channel Rate Control for cdma2000 High Rate Packet Data Systems, Chakravarty et al. (Qualcomm Inc.) Reverse Link Performance of IS-95 Based Cellular Systems, R. Padovani (Qualcomm Inc.) Uplink Scheduling in CDMA Packet Data Systems, Kumaran and Qian (Infocom 2003) Opportunistic Transmission Scheduling with Resource-Sharing Constraints in Wireless Networks, Sin Liu et al. (JSAC) Opportunistic Power Scheduling for Multi-server Wireless Systems with Minimum Performance Constraints, Jang-Won Lee et al. (Infocom 2004) EE 544 (Digital Communications) notes!
27