You are on page 1of 7

Latency in Broad-band Mobile Networks

Clara Serrano, Beatriz Garriga, Julia Velasco, Julio Urbano, Santiago Tenorio and Manuel Sierra 3G Radio Product Vodafone Group Networks Madrid, Spain clara.serrano@vodafone.com, beatriz.garriga@vodafone.com, julia.velasco@vodafone.com, julio.urbano@vodafone.com, santiago.tenorio@vodafone.com, manuel.sierra@vodafone.com Abstract— Whilst currently available speeds on Mobile 3G
Networks are comparable with many fixed broadband carriers, RTT is still away from the values achieved in fixed NWs. There is still significant room for improvement of latency in 3 G NWs to provide the best quality of experience for broadband services, therefore, latency is a key parameter that should be taken into account in future 3G NW configurations. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the high impact latency has on current Mobile NWs and also to present ways that should be followed to reduce RTT, based on real NW measurements. In realizing this challenge, the current state of HSPA NWs in terms of latency have been analyzed, the sensitivity to latency of that traffic carried by the 3G NW quantified and measuring the proportional contribution of RTT from all the elements of the NW. Initial analysis shows that the UTRAN is, currently, the predominant factor in E2E latency for 3G NWs and therefore this study focuses more on this aspect. The next step has been to study the reduction of latency on 3G real NWs by means of current technology optimization(s) and planned technology deployment. Finally, it was investigated how QoS differentiation can be optimised for sustaining RTT over a potentially congested NW in several of its interfaces and/or nodes. Keywords-component: Latency; RTT; UTRAN; Transport Network; Abbreviations UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UTRAN: UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network 3G NW: 3rd Generation Network R99: Release 99 of UMTS CN: Core Network RNC: Radio Network Controller Node B: UMTS Base Station UE: User Equipment SGSN: Service GPRS Support Node GGSN: Gateway GPRS Support Node NGME: GGSN Uu interface: UE to Node B interface Iub interface: Node B to RNC interface Iu interface: RNC to SGSN (or MSC) interface Gn interface: SGSN to GGSN interface Gi interface: GGSN to GGSN interface RTT: Round Trip Time TTI: Transmission Time Interval RLC: Radio Link Control E2E: End to end QoS: Quality of Service HSPA: High-Speed Packet Access. HSDPA: High-Speed Downlink Packet Access HSUPA: High-Speed Uplink Packet Access HSPA ph1: HSPA phase 1 implementation LTE: Long Term Evolution ST: Service Time MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit IP: Internet Protocol ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode HTTP: HyperText Transfer Protocol Mbps: Mega Bits Per Second ms: Miliseconds DSL: Digital Subscriber Line ACK: Acknowledge (return message)

I.

INTRODUCTION

Today, mobile communication can be ubiquitous (anytime, anywhere, anyplace), personal (instant messaging, picture cards, video messaging) or interactive (push-to-talk [PTT], video telephony, video sharing). Using mobile communication services has never been easier or more entertaining. It is now hard to imagine a world without wireless applications and services. Worldwide, mobile services are playing increasingly important roles in many facets of our society. Just a decade ago, mobile services consisted primarily of basic voice communication whilst today we depend on mobile services not only for voice communication, but also for education, entertainment, healthcare, location and m-commerce. Mobile services have also made significant inroads in developing nations, by improving the quality of life for many of their citizens. As mobile services and their consumer adoption increases around the world, one may say that mobile services are indeed becoming an integral and indispensable part of life. [1] With the introduction of broad-band mobile services, operators now have the capability of offering latency-sensitive and simultaneous voice and data services such as VoIP, PTT, video telephony, video sharing and live multiplayer gaming. The evolution of mobile services has a symbiotic relationship with the evolution of wireless technologies. RAN evolution from R99 to HSPA bearers has significantly increased Mobile 3G NW’s peak rates and reduced its Latency. However, while speeds currently available are comparable with many Fixed Broadband Carriers, the RTT is still not comparable to the low values achievable by fixed NWs where Mobile NW can be

978-1-4244-2517-4/09/$20.00 ©2009 IEEE

sensitivity to latency is analyzed for a range of typical Burst Sizes present on HSPA NWs (see Figure 1.809 262 25 100B 1KB 10KB 100KB 1MB 10MB 100MB where L is latency between two elements of the NW and ST is the Average Service Time. an example of Burst size distribution for HSPA connections typically observed on a 3G NW is presented. Latency values in the range of only 50 milliseconds for example.mobile companies should think about a really obvious and tangible benefit to end users: “Instantaneous has a lot of value”.374 Carried Traffic Frequency of Burst 122. It can be seen that in a typical 3G NW small bursts of traffic (0 to 1KB) are very frequent and makes up the majority of burst sizes.01ms. latency should be one of the main parameters to take into account when considering current and future mobile networks. because the bigger the transmission time is.869 51. . A. How can sensitivity to latency be quantified? For example: if a large amount of data is sent over a period of 2 seconds. then the latency is more than the transmission time.[[5]] If mobile services want really to become truly indispensable by providing the best quality of experience for ubiquitous. This leaves us with a wide range of specific techniques for optimizing e2e performance [6] by lowering latency and presents an additional key objective to bear in mind in improving the user experience as opposed to only going for higher peak rates. sensibility to latency depends strongly on the burst size if the packets to be sent. ). sensL is the Latency contribution to the total Service Time of a burst. Never mind price. Sensitivity to Latency of Burst Sizes Volume of HSPA NWs Bursts 166. but if instead it were a smaller amount of data sent and it were to takes 0.seen as a “long pipe” in comparison [1][3][[4]]. In Figure 2. II. 100 Sensitivity to Latency 80 60 40 20 0 100B 1KB 10KB 100KB 1MB 10MB 100MB In this section it is shown the high impact latency has on broad-band mobile services.316 12. Therefore. may still engender customer dissatisfaction with mobile broadband compared to fixed connections. then quite probably the latency here isn't very noticeable. quantifying the sensitivity to latency of mobile NWs and a comprehensive analysis of the current 3G real NW traffic. . A service based on traffic bursts up to 50Kbytes size say is generally significantly sensitive to latency. The main factor that affects sensitivity with respect to latency is the type of traffic the network transmits. CURRENT STATE OF 3G NW IN TERMS OF LATENCY HSPA Network Sensitivity to Latency Then. Sensitivity to Latency can be defined as L sensL(%) = ST Burst Size …and more Figure 1. a detailed analysis of the burst size distribution in 3G NWs is required to characterize Sensitivity to latency in 3G NW. with a typical latency of 100ms. Where an instantaneous service is used. L will be a constant value between two specific points of the NW. even small latency contribution could bring a disproportionate effect on the overall user experience.e. Therefore. defined as A Thr Burst Size …and more Figure 2. ranging from 1MB to 100MB and more. the size of the traffic bursts. i. although it should be noted that most of the traffic is carried in much bigger transmissions. . personal and interactive services.834 30. depending on the Throughput (Thr) and the Size of the burst to transmit (A). It’s observed that sensitivity decreases as burst size increases. This could well be the “killer” differentiator for broadband-mobile services.068 1. Volume of Application Data Traffic collected from IU interface in Vodafone Spain NW on June 2008 for HSPA connections ST = L + Ttx = L + where Ttx is the time of transmission of the traffic burst. or fancy mashups . while ST depends on the transmitted burst size. Considering typical values of 1Mbps for throughput and 100msec for latency. the less latency contributes to ST.

which makes up between 60% and 90% of the time needed to receive the ACK from the server. and the result is shown below in Figure 5.. the different composition of objects to download or a number of server-client protocol implementations will introduce a latency component into the throughput-driven massive volume part. combining both analysis (Figure 1. An analysis of typical application burst profiles and latency dependence has been performed. Browsing P2P Streaming Gaming Otros 1% 2% 11% 10 % 77 % Sensitivity to Latency (%) Figure 3. For example. Whilst on the other hand an extreme case of throughput dependent application are P2P applications. it can be said that the service given to the 77% of the users in 3G NWs is sensitive to latency – a substantial proporption. . The measurements reveal an intrinsic latency in the 3G NW (HSDPA and HSUPA phase 1) in the range of 65 ms to 180 ms. while reductions in latency will result in almost 1:1 improvement of the service time. but are throughput sensitive. and Figure 2. P2P. The high variance found is explained by the different configurations of the network. Conducting the same analysis to the traffic itself but in the quantity of bytes transmitted. Contribution to RTT from all network elements. Figure 4. Finally. Users with ping times to the game server lower than 80. The contribution of the radio network goes from 65 to 115 ms. In Transport and Core networks there are different aspects that impact greatly the RTT. some measurements were performed in a real 3G NW. tx topology. considered “medium sensitivity”. ). it has to be taken into account the percentage of traffic these bursts represent out of the total traffic a 3G network carries. not the quantity of bursts.. brings the reverse conclusion: 90% of the traffic on HSPA NWs is carried on big bursts (see. service time for a given application will always be a combination of both types of traffic: throughput sensitive and latency sensitive. ). Taking into account the burst profile found in the different applications from an analysis in existing 3G NWs it was found that browsing applications have a sensitivity to latency between 20-30 %. 10 % have zero sensitivity to latency and 1% of the network is extremely sensitive. Bursts 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 in HSPA NWs CDF If we consider each session as an experience of an individual user. ). depending on the transport network topology. Streaming and Gaming. B. This means that for nearly 80% of the bursts transmitted over the NW any improvement in throughput is irrelevant. such as the type of connection between the node B and RNC (ATM vs IP protocol. Typical applications that can be found in 3G NWs are browsing. with an analysis of the proportion of sessions each application represents in the 3G NW (see Figure 5. ). Contribution to RTT from all HSPA NW elements In order to obtain the contribution of each network element to the RTT.100msec are referred as Low Ping Rates. Sensitivity to Latency Distribution of Bursts in the HSPA NW However. while users with higher ping times are called “High Ping Whiners” for using this as an excuse for their relative lack of skills [7]. Service sessions distribution in an existing 3G NW. ). In practice. we can deduce that 80% of the data bursts transmitted over the 3G NW have a sensitivity to latency higher than 90% (see Figure 2. An extreme case of latency dependent application has been found in On-line Gaming. in the following sections an analysis of Latency in a 3 G real NW is shown. This finding corroborates the thinking that latency should be one of the main factors to be taken into account when considering the design of current and future mobile networks. Figure 2. and not only in the Uu interface.As a result. (the breakdown is valid for IP packet size lower than 300bytes). With this in mind. and big bursts are not sensitive to latency (see Figure 1. 65 – 115*ms * Over DSL Tx 2-20ms 1-25ms 1-18ms 70-180ms •Low-end latency target <60ms is feasible thanks to new HSPA enhancements from this year Measured in VF ES Network Huawei June-Aug 2008 •High-end latency can be reduced significantly by resolutions in CN & Transport topology/architecture Figure 5. in browsing applications. a 3GNW can be characterized in terms of sensitivity to latency : 77% of the sessions performed in 3GNW have medium sensitivity to latency.

Transport network topology optimization. Parameter optimization There are three aspects that need to be optimized due to their high influence in latency: HSUPA Grant. a. 40msec/KB equates to a 200Kbps net 200 180 160 Average RTT Max RTT Min RTT Figure 6. distribution of network elements has to be considered: for Iu. if more than one hop is needed when using a microwave link. Therefore measures should be investigated as to lowering latency values in order to improve the user experience – these are now described. shows the latency comparison in setting different packet sizes. but the magnitude of the linear increase reveals a poor exploit of throughput capabilities. The measurements were performed in a real network. while highest values come from those nodes with several hops (either in the last mile. Usually the Core network is designed to be secure. Optimization of Current Technology Detailed analysis of the results of the previous section leads us to focus the optimization of the current 3G NWs technology in three aspects: UTRAN software upgrades. resulting in retransmissions and increased RTT. This improvement in data rate has also a significant impact in latency when transmitting heavy packets. or through the backhaul). it has a high impact on the services given by 3G NWs. compared to R99 radio bearers. Provision of the Iub interface over DSL link is becoming very common nowadays.e. much more focussed on redundancy and robustness than on the time delay. shows the latency for different transport network configurations at the Iub interface (measured in the real NW. The difference between a direct connection from node B to RNC with a fixed line (fiber or coaxial feeder) and a microwave link implies on average approximately 20% more delay. etc) and the paths defined in the Gn and Gi interfaces. If an IP network is used as the core transport (CPN: Core Packet Network). RTT values are optimized when RNC and SGSN are co-located. transport network topology optimization and parameter optimization. Figure 5. LATENCY REDUCTION As described in the previous section. and in fact it increases itI by on average 20 ms (30% higher RTT) with respect to the optimum link. Packet loss suspected. UTRAN software upgrades Currently too high dispersion.a quite high figure when comparing with the service time of the typical burst of traffic. It has been also shown that for these values of latency. an optimization on the tx routes (these networks are usually built under robustness criteria. but it is not the optimum way to achieve low latency. so by optimising the packet routing the RTT could be strongly reduced (see next section). and the server directly connected to the Core Network. RTT is strongly dependent on the access transmission technology and on the number of intermediary hops nodes there are in the connectivity. the latency becomes 50 ms higher than the direct connection from the node B to the RNC. In addition to the latency gain. HSUPA Grant[8]: Error! Reference source not found. For larger packets the impact is higher. Latency by Access Tx technology 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Direct connectionn to RNC Microwave link 1 hop Microwave link >=2hops Unbundling Bearing in mind that a radio network contributes to at least 60% of the overall latency one immediate piece of advice to all MNOs wanting to reduce RTT values in their 3G NWs is to implement HSUPA “Ph1” (10msec TTI). Contribution of different transmission technologies in Iub III. HSUPA increases the UL throughput by being able to provide up to 2 Mbps instead of the 384 kbps in R99 (384 kbps is the maximum radio bearer in release 99). Time (ms) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 RLC protocol affects since the RNC sends the ACKs in DL every 10 ms. As packet sizes increases so too does latency. Ping Size (Bytes) The UPA Grant assigns initially the Minimum Bit Rate to all users. reducing the overall RTT in 20% (compared to HSDPA plus R99 in uplink). Figure 7. improves significantly the Uu interface behaviour in the uplink. from UE to RNC). In summary. and similarly so for the SGSN and GGSN and the Gn interface. Furthermore. Packet size (Ping size) impact on RRT . up to 20ms improvements can be achieved (based on the tests performed in Vodafone Spain). In such topologies. not focusing on optimized RTT) could bring a significant improvement (up to 8ms based on the tests performed in Vodafone Spain). In order to optimize RTT values over both the Iu and Gn interfaces. with HSDPA and HSUPA ph1 available. the network topology i. IP MTU and RLC protocol.number of intermediate nodes. 3G NWs have a current intrinsic latency between 65 and 180ms . in a low loaded scenario. This technology. The lowest values of latency correspond to those nodes connected directly with the RNC.

the smaller the packet is. HSUPA phase 2 could reduce RTT by 20% and bring overall RTT to less than 65ms.g. . at least for high priority connections. On the other hand. Interfaces using the IP protocol are impacted by MTU since it implies dividing the IP packet in different smaller packets. Expected RRT improvements for these different technology enhancements are displayed in Error! Reference source not found. HSPA+ R99 UL QPSK. The deployment of LTE is expected to show big improvement in latency. if the path is reliable enough (i. HSDPA and HSUPA ph1 (10ms). the latency could become less than 20ms. A less conservative algorithm.throughput. latency has been reduced due to the deployment of HSDPA and HSUPA technologies. the faster it reaches the target. 16QAM. Planned Technology Deployment In the coming years additions and modifications to the specifications in question will bring about many enhancements in the radio network which will help to reduce the transmission delay such that the bottleneck could even be moved/found somewhere else in the network. HSPA+ and LTE. 180 160 140 Time (ms) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 R99 DL. the delay in which packets are delivered increases under NW congestion. and increasing as the link is proven to be good enough.535 bytes while the typical MTU for Ethernet is by default 1. and it is usually conservative initially. In addition to this. and Continuous Packet Connectivity.g. 2ms) occur. which in turn requires higher processing capabilities in the intervening or endpoint elements . 2ms+8ms). Therefore. This new technology – almost fully specified – is/was primarily developed with a focus on high speed data connections. In recent years. where a non-significant percentage of retransmissions take place). The topology of a LTE network differs from the 3G networks due to the absence of an RNC element (where such RNC “functions” are moved to the NodeB). A conservative setting of the UPA Grant algorithm could be considered thereby permitting differentiated improvement according to QoS class. and assumptions for HSUPA “ph2” (where a TTI of 2ms is used).e. these have to be added to (due to the scheduler) bringing about additional delay in the RNC (e. Investigating RTT improvements via QoS Differentiation via “smart” management of the queues in all the congested interfaces whereby packets from high priority users are placed in the higher priority queue resulted in better responsiveness of the system. starting from a very low data rate. Based on estimations. would allow transmitting much faster in the radio interfaces. 16QAM. HSDPA HSDPA HSDPA HSDPA.e. and a more distributed Core Network permits more direct and thereby faster communication between the node B and the Core. Assuming an optimum transport and Core network configuration and a delay contribution of less than 5 ms. A fixed interval of every 10ms means that even where relatively small packet delays from Core network side (e. HSUPA R99 UL R99 UL HSUPA 2 ms LTE Core NodeB&RNC Computer& UE b. The linear increase comes from the fact that the high load data packets are transmitted in different TTIs (time intervals in RLC layer). such as “Enhanced Layer 2” and “Enhanced Always On”. allows the NW to have different RLC packet sizes. This figure contains data from real NW measurements for R99. LTE will not be hindered by existing the RLC protocol limitations impacting 3G.500 bytes.HSPA Schedulers (UL and DL) can now schedule packets on a per user basis i. “Enhanced Always On” is the name given to a group of features related to improving the connection (setup) time and battery life: Enhanced F-DPCH. it is more efficient to reduce the MTU . Further analysis is underway in order to minimize this issue. The maximum data to be transmitted in one TTI depends on the HSUPA Grant algorithm. depending on the data load to be sent. Sustain RTT on Congested UTRAN :QoS differentiation In general. The main UTRAN features impacting delay performance per priority can be divided in three blocks[11][12]: . SRB on HSDPA. Further improvements are expected via new extended features in the Radio network part such as HSUPA 2ms (UPA phase 2). RLC protocol in UTRAN (UE-RNC)[9] impacts latency as well due to the impact on the packet scheduler. QoS Load differentiation is one method which can allocate high priority users with better relative performance in terms of delay in addition to throughput [10]. It Figure 8. “Enhanced Layer 2” is a feature which improves the efficiency of both the usage of the required RLC (HSDPA related part) and MAC-hs protocols enabling the support of high data rates as well as improved terminal battery life. Expected average RTT for coming radio network technologies c. IP MTU: The maximum size of an IP packet is 65.if the processing capability allows it. select high priority users over others in the filling up of the TTI.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Gold Silver w/o Load Bronze 2. It is shown that the high impact burst size has on sensitivity: small data bursts usually implies more sensitive traffic and thus applications. understand the impact latency has on the service time of a given application. applications will always be sensitive to a combination of both of these metrics of throughput and latency.3 5. at present RTT in Mobile 3G NWs still does not compare to those values achieved in fixed NWs.4 9. shows that the difference in terms of ping delay increases where Burst size as minimum bit rate (MinBR) settings for low priority users lose effect.e. Silver (medium priority) and Bronze (low priority). For Silver and especially for Bronze the congestion is more apparent. Figure 9.4 2. Ping Delay per priority class (ms) . under congestion and w/o load (Figure 10. Where HSUPA is still not available. For Gold users. the result is the reverse . Taking into account both sensitivity to latency and the size of the data burst. In terms of Traffic (quantity of bytes transmitted). operators now have the capability of offering latency-sensitive voice and data services. The time to download a typical web page (size 221KB) has been measured in two situations. HSDPA 7. Bearing this in mind.: Measurements presented in this section were performed in a UTRAN network. latency reduction should be amongst the main goals when considering current and future mobile networks. lower delays are possible if burst size is high enough (i. ). results for loaded NW kept close to results for unloaded NW.e burst size maximum throughput is higher than minimum bit rate). and these are in most if not all cases not sensitive to e2e latency.4 Priority Class Figure 10. depend on the transport network topology. and application of Diffserv Priorities of IP ensures a differentiated E2E delay. it has also been measured the time to download a browsing application. for Gold users. Ping Download time for a typical web page per priority class (ms) IV. a study of the distribution of burst size on a real 3G network was conducted which revealed that total traffic consisted of a high percentage of small bursts. With respect to the services that produce the data packets and the size of these bursts of data. typical latency values are at least 20 ms longer. to have the same RTT under loaded NW as when NW has no load. Investigating how QoS Load Differentiation can impact upon RTT.-Traffic Mapping of QoS in ATM.. RTT measurements per priority. one of the most used application in 3G NW. CONCLUSION With the introduction of broad-band mobile services. However.7 3. Measurements in a real NW show presently an inherent latency in the range of 70 ms to 180 ms via the HSPA NW (HSDPA and HSUPA phase 1) – although this does .90% of data on HSPA NWs arise via large bursts. their RTT is significantly higher than Gold users. the high proportion of bursts and high proportion of users with applications that are sensitive to latency. Measured delay of Silver~Bronze users increases on average by 84%~245% with respect to Gold users as Burst size increases. The objective when configuring QoS Load differentiation mechanisms is. In practice. Delay (ms) Time for web page to download (sec) . 80% of such data bursts transmitted over the 3G NW are latency sensitive in more than 90% of cases. in addition to higher peak rates or indeed as an objective in itself. The high impact the current values of latency have in 3G NW services was shown and with this in mind ways to quantify the sensitivity to latency in services i. as seen in previous sections. Under the same conditions. This behavior is key for delay sensitive applications.4 2. Measurements were performed on a loaded node B during periods of full Iub occupancy.4 Mbps technologies were available during measurements performed with a correspondingly enabled mobile in both instances.2 Mbps and HSUPA 1. Application of these techniques will permit users a minimum bit rate according to their priority and in addition to higher minimum bit rates. RTT is very dependent on the Transport Network architecture and in Ping Size (Bytes) Figure 9. three groups of users were defined in analyzing the impact and resultant performance in the handling of each group of users over a range of QoS settings: Gold (high priority).Introducing Flow Control at the Iub enable the buffer to provide more BW to high priority users. Optimizing e2e performance should also include aiming to reduce latency values when trying to improve user experience.

interface delays usually arise from a Transport and Core Networks design that is not focussed upon i.co. Previously contributing some 75% of latency. Gn and Gi interfaces display a high variance in the measured latency due to .e.Current network parameter optimization.QoS Load Differentiation Application in a UTRAN. to be published in April 2009 [11] 3GPP TS 23.0: “Radio Link Control (RLC) protocol specification” [10] B. Network traces from current HSPA network now show that the UTRAN (RNC. In other words. . . "Low latency: The forgotten piece of the mobile broadband puzzle.and therefore other NW aspects may need to be optimized too. 31 May). It has also been shown that even in presently deployed 3G NWs – and indeed in future 3G NWs – various techniques are available now and in the near future that permit the decreased latency values thereby improving the user experience. intermediary nodes there are. It’s still the Latency.4. It is important to note that the contribution to the sum Latency total of the Radio interface is progressively decreasing." Flarion Technologies. [5] Dean Bubley (2008.qualcomm. It is expected that eventually. .Optimize the Transport network topology so that the route taken by the packets is the most efficient.edgeblog. [Consulted: August 2008] Internet available: http://disruptivewireless.13. Asensio.com/2008/07/latency-in-mobile-more-needs-to-bedone. maximizing deployment of HSUPAph1 (10msec TTI) across networks.newnet.Via SW in most cases. deploy HSUPA phase 2 (2 ms TTI) when available.in most cases .blogspot. . 5 June). NJ 2003. Tenorio and E. [Consulted: June 2008] Internet available: http://www. RTT can be sustained even in a congested UTRAN..net/2007/its-stillthe-latency-stupid/ [4] Flarion. The Latency analyses performed in a real 3G NWs prove that this is a key factor in the quality of experience of the broad-band mobile services.particular the number of hops i. the key actions to be taken in order to improve the network performance and reduce overall RTT are summarized here together with the impact on latency they have:.html [6] DOUGHERTY WILLIAM (2007. It’s still the Latency. and an SGSN with an GGSN. Node B and Uu interface) contribution is now in some cases below 60% due to Transport network optimizations already. S.Serrano.stuartcheshire. Evolution of Wireless Applications and Services [Consulted: June 2008] Internet available: http://www.3.e.com/common/documents/white_papers/EvolutionWirelessAppsSer vices.the different network topology in the connectivity of an RNC and an SGSN.321 v8. Based on measurements taken and the results obtained both in existing NWs and via simulations. Latency in mobile – more needs to be done. . the key features of “HSPA+” and when available in the future deploy LTE. 29 July). Dominguez. C. December).by applying QoS Load differentiation mechanisms.0. IEEE.net/2007/its-stillthe-latency-stupid-pt2/ [7] The True Gamer’s Edge [Consulted: June 2008] The Saint [online] Internet available: http://homepages. the Radio part will not be the only bottleneck – if indeed the bottleneck does not “move” to another part of the chain .322 V8. Iub.org/rants/Latency. REFERENCES [1] QUALCOM INCORPORATED (2007. These three interfaces contribute between 5 and 60 ms to the latency. [Consulted: June 2008] Internet available: http://www. IP MTU and RLC protocol . providing high priority users with a better performance in terms of delay. F. . Stupid…pt2.pdf [2] CHESHIRE STUART (2001). Garriga. [Consulted: June 2008] Internet available: http://www. HSUPA Grant.edgeblog. Stupid.html [3] WILLIAM DOUGHERTY (2007. not optimized for latency. It’s the Latency . [12] 3GPP TS 25.433: " UTRAN Iub interface Node B Application Part (NBAP) signalling ".0: “Meduyn Access Control (MAC) protocol specificatioin” [9] 3GPP TS 25.107 v5.: " QoS Concept and Architecture ". Stupid…pt1. The Iu.uk/thesaint/ [8] 3GPP TS 25.