You are on page 1of 6

Dimensioning of the LTE S1 Interface

X. Li, U. Toseef, T. Weerawardane, W. Bigos, D. Dulas, C. Goerg, A. Timm-Giel and A. Klug

Abstract—This paper presents analytical models to dimension
the transport bandwidths for the S1 interface in the Long Term
Evolution (LTE) Network. In this paper, we consider two major
traffic types: elastic traffic and real time traffic. For each type of
traffic, individual dimensioning models are proposed. For
validating these analytical dimensioning models, a developed
LTE system simulation model is used. The simulation results
demonstrate that the proposed models can properly estimate the
required performances and thus be able to be used for link
dimensioning for various traffic and network scenarios.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The roadmap of Next Generation Mobile Network
(NGMN) is to provide mobile broadband services. Services
like Mobile TV, multimedia online gaming, Web 2.0, and
high-speed Internet will produce tremendous traffic in the
future mobile networks. To make this happen, 3GPP
introduces a new radio access technology, known as Long
Term Evolution (LTE) to ensure the competitiveness of the
3GPP technology family for the long term. LTE supports
extensively high throughput and low latency, improved system
capacity and coverage performance.
LTE introduces a new air interface and radio access called
as Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN), which is specified in the new 3GPP Releases 8 and
9. To support the LTE radio interfaces and the E-UTRAN,
3GPP also specifies a new Packet Core, the Enhanced Packet
Core (EPC) network architecture. This paper is only focused
on dimensioning the transport network of the E-UTRAN (i.e.
the LTE access network), which is based on IP. E-UTRAN is
designed to support high data rates, low latency, and hence to
bring improved user experience with full mobility. This is
achieved by introducing a new, fully IP-based flat architecture
with enhanced Node B (eNode B) directly connected to access
gateway (aGW). The eNode B (denoted as eNB in this paper)
is in charge of Radio Resource Management (RRM) decision,
scheduling of users, etc. The aGW provides termination of the
LTE bearer and acts as a mobility anchor point for the user
plane. The eNB is connected to the aGW with the S1 interface.
Between the eNBs the X2 interface is defined, which is used
to connect the eNBs with each other in the network. The X2

X. Li, U. Toseef, T. Weerawardane, and C. Goerg are with TZI-ikom,
Institute of Communication Network, University of Bremen, Germany (email: xili | umr | tlw @ comnets.uni-bremen.de, cg@c-b-g.de).
W. Bigos, D. Dulas are with Nokia Siemens Networks Sp. z o.o., Wroclaw,
Poland (e-mail: wojciech.bigos | dominik.dulas @nsn.com).
A. Timm-Giel is with Institute of Communication Networks, Hamburg
University of Technology, Germany (email: timm-giel@tuhh.de)
A. Klug is with Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG, München,
Germany (e-mail: andreas.klug@nsn.com).

interface is needed for the case of handover to forward the
traffic from a source eNB to its target eNB.
This paper is aimed to propose efficient analytical models
to calculate the necessary bandwidths for the S1 interface. The
objective of the dimensioning is to minimize the transport
network costs (for leasing IP bandwidth) while being able to
fulfill the QoS requirements of various services. In this paper,
we consider two fundamental types of traffic: elastic traffic
and real time traffic. Elastic traffic is generated by non real
time (NRT) applications and is typically carried by the TCP
protocol. Typical applications are Internet services like web
browsing and FTP. Real time (RT) traffic is associated with
real time applications, which are delay-sensitive and have
strict packet delay requirements over the transport networks.
Typical applications in this traffic class are VoIP, streaming or
video conferencing. In this work, for the dimensioning of the
S1 interface the defined QoS requirement for the elastic traffic
is the end-to-end application throughput or transfer delay
(which specifies the amount of data that can be transferred in a
certain time period); while for real time traffic the considered
QoS is the transport network delay, i.e. the end-to-end packet
delay through the S1 interface (called S1 delay).
In this paper, we propose two individual analytical
models for each traffic type for the dimensioning of the S1
interface to meet their individual QoS requirements. The
proposed analytical dimensioning model for elastic traffic is
based on the M/G/R-Processor Sharing (M/G/R-PS) model,
which characterizes TCP traffic at flow level and is often used
to calculate the mean transaction time or throughput for TCP
flows. For real time traffic, we propose simple queuing model
on the packet level to estimate the transport network delay
performance. Furthermore, we present how to apply these two
proposed analytical models for carrying out the bandwidth
dimensioning for the S1 interface. In this work, a LTE
simulation model is developed to validate the analytical results
from the proposed dimensioning models. This LTE simulator
models in detail the important LTE network entities, protocol
layers, required scheduling and QoS functions, etc.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows:
section II gives an overview of the developed LTE simulation
model. Section III presents the analytical dimensioning model
for elastic traffic, and section IV presents the analytical model
for real time traffic. In Section V, the complete dimensioning
procedure is summarized. In section VI, the proposed
analytical models are validated by simulations.
II.

LTE SIMULATION MODEL

The LTE simulator is implemented using OPNET
simulation software. The developed LTE simulation model is
shown in Fig. 1. It includes all basic E-UTRAN and EPC
network entities. The main focus of this simulation model is

RLC. DiffServ is developed by the IETF [1]. which consists of the air interface model and the S1 model. DIMENSIONING MODEL FOR ELASTIC TRAFFIC The elastic traffic is typically carried by the TCP protocol. LTE Protocol Structure (user-plane) The LTE transport network is based on IP technology. the standard OPNET protocols such as application and TCP/UDP are used. For the UE mobility. Special efforts are to use the M/G/R-PS model and extend it to model both the LTE radio interface and the S1 interface using Differentiated Service (DiffServ) QoS scheme. instantaneous feedback). Figure 1. it can be concluded that the end-to-end application performance is essentially influenced by both air interface and S1 interface. Framework of the Dimensioning Model By analyzing the LTE system model.g. In [5. security (IPsec). MAC and PHY between UE entity and eNB entity. Ethernet is used as the layer 2 protocol for the current implementation. In the LTE transport network. 1 shows an example scenario with two eNBs. IP and L2 protocols. IP protocol is the one of the key protocols which handles routing. UMTS). An introduction of the basic M/G/RPS model can be found in [3]. the control-plane is not directly modeled within the LTE simulation model. Figure 2. 6. It mainly includes the GTP. The EPC user-plane and control plane network entities are represented by the aGW network entity. and enduser protocols. not utilizing its allocated bandwidth) then its bandwidth shall be fairly shared by the other queues according to their weights. The LTE transport network applies the DiffServ-based QoS framework and it is established by connecting a number of IP DiffServ routers between the eNBs and the aGW. If there are in total N PHB queues and all queues are transmitting data. The protocols are categorized into three groups: radio (Uu). The M/G/R-PS model has become a popular approach for dimensioning of different fixed (e. Let wk be the weight of the kth PHB queue and BW the total available IP bandwidth. III. which defines the three most common Per Hop Behavior (PHB) groups corresponding to different service levels: Expedited Forwarding (EF).on the LTE access network. LTE Simulation Model Fig. Fig. and a number of IP routers between the eNBs in the E-UTRAN network and also connecting the eNBs with the aGW. ADSL) and mobile networks (e. 2 are used at both S1 interface and X2 interfaces. They are located at the remote Internet server and each UE entity. (1) wk BW k = ⋅ BW N ∑w i i =1 For modeling the end-user protocols. Due to TCP flow control. an extension of the basic M/G/R-PS model was proposed which considers the impact of TCP slow-start. They are the two major bottlenecks through the end-to-end path. and based on that we propose a framework for estimating the end-to-end application performance of the elastic traffic. The definition of WFQ discipline is given in [2]. The user-plane transport protocols as shown in Fig. the lower will be the . The radio (Uu) protocols include the peer to peer protocols such as PDCP. then the kth queue obtains a fraction of the total capacity BWk as calculated in equation (1).e. Best Effort (BE). the M/G/R-PS model is further extended for dimensioning the LTE S1 interface. A. RLC and MAC (including air interface scheduler) layers are modeled in detail according to the 3GPP specifications in this simulator. The higher the air interface utilization. the rate of TCP flow adjusts itself to adapt to the available bandwidth in the network. each PHB is assigned to a transport priority and has its own buffer in the transport scheduler. services differentiation and scheduling functionalities. 2 shows the LTE user-plane protocol structure which is developed within this LTE simulator. If TCP works ideally (i. and Assured Forwarding (AF). all elastic traffic flows going over the same link will share the bandwidth resources equally and thus the system is essentially behaving as a Processor Sharing (PS) system [3]. The aGW includes the functionalities of the eGSN-C (evolved SGSN-C) and eGSN-U (evolved SGSN-U). UDP. The PDCP. In this paper. 7] the author applied the M/G/R-PS model to dimension the Iub transport links in the UMTS network for elastic traffic. Furthermore. However the effect of signaling such as their overhead and delays are considered at the respective user-plane protocols upon specific requirements.e. But the PHY (physical) layer is not detailed modeled since our focus lies on the LTE access network. In [4]. The remote node represents an Internet server or any node that provides the Internet services. transport. To serve different PHBs. general mobility model such as random directional and random way points are used.g. It shall be noticed that if one priority queue is empty (i. However the effect of the radio channels and PHY characteristics are modeled at the MAC layer in terms of the data rates of individual user performance. Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) scheduling is used. The air interface determines the radio resource each UE can get.

In this case. and thus it as well has impact on the total congestion and influences the application performance of the elastic traffic. It is noted that r is used for each PHB class. Then the S1 model will take the maximum UE throughput obtained from the air interface model as an input parameter and then estimate the impact caused by the S1 link on the overall end-to-end performance. The S1 interface is the second capacity bottleneck. The main idea of the proposed analytical models for dimensioning the S1 link is to apply the M/G/R-PS model per PHB class (i. ⎟ ⎠ ⎫ ⎞ ⎛ ⎜ C S1 − ∑ L S1 ( j ) ⎟ ⎪⎬ ⎟ ⎜ j ≠k ⎠ ⎪ ⎝ ⎭ (4) Step 2: With the CS1(k) the normalized traffic load of the PHB class k. x ⎛ E (R . the LTE S1 transport network is based on IP using DiffServ QoS framework together with the WFQ scheduling.average UE throughput as a result of the congestion over the air interface. If the air interface capacity is fixed. one elastic flow can take the complete radio resource for itself if there are no other UEs active in the cell. Step 1: given the CS1. B. As real time traffic contributes to the total traffic load and also shares the available radio resources with the elastic traffic. Here LoadUu can be calculated from the given traffic models and total number of active UEs in the cell. The basic model for dimensioning an IP-based transport link in the UMTS networks. The following gives the detailed steps to calculate the average application delay of elastic traffic flows transmitted over the PHB class k. It shows that CS1(k) has a minimum bandwidth that equals to the allocated bandwidth assigned by the WFQ transport scheduler according to its weight wk (see equation (1)). This paper will further extend this basic model to model the LTE S1 interface and also to capture the detailed TCP slow start behavior. i. we also need to take the real time traffic into consideration when estimating the end-to-end performance of the elastic traffic in our model. It quantifies the increase of the transfer time (or decrease of the effective throughput) of individual flows as a result of the air interface congestion. Step 4: For the PHB class k. ⎧ ⎪ C S1 (k ) = max ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ ⎛ ⎜ wk ⎜ C S1 ⋅ ∑i wi ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟. denoted as CS1(k). all elastic flows can share the common radio resources equally and in this context the air interface can be modeled as a Processor Sharing (PS) system. there is no maximum bearer rate limitation for each LTE bearer (i. For each PHB class. That means. Based on the sojourn time formula of the M/G/1-PS model. That means. For the analytical model. The delay factor is larger or equal to 1. as given in equation (5). Here R is determined by Rk = ⎡C S1 (k ) / r ⎤ . thus all PHB classes have the same maximum average UE data rate. R ρ ) ⎞ x (5) E M / G / R − PS {T ( x k )} = k ⎜⎜1 + 2 k k k ⎟⎟ = k f k r ⎝ Rk (1 − ρ k ) ⎠ r Here E2 denotes Erlang’s second formula (Erlang C formula). the air interface model calculates the maximum average UE throughput but without considering any congestion in the S1 transport network. all UEs are equally served with the same priority. the proposed framework of the dimensioning model consists of the air interface model and the S1 model.e. Modeling of the S1 Interface As shown in section II. Thus. As a result. in order to estimate the end-to-end performance. (3) r = CUu / fUu C. Therefore. we define LS1(k) be the mean offered traffic of the PHB class k (including both RT and NRT traffic) and wk denotes its WFQ weight. apply the M/G/R-PS model to estimate the application performance. It is noted that here the delay factor fUu for elastic traffic also considers the traffic load of real time services. Furthermore. which implies that the application delay (or file transfer time) will be increased. the average utilization of the air interface is calculated as pUu = ( LoadUu / CUu ). using equation (4). the M/G/1-PS model can be used to model the air interface. we need to model these two bottlenecks individually in the analytical dimensioning model. for the given mean offered traffic over the PHB class k. because the M/G/1-PS model is defined for the situations where the flow rate is not limited. Modeling of the Air Interface The air interface scheduler will have important impact on the achievable UE throughput. (2) fUu = 1 /(1 − pUu ) With fUu we can derive the average UE throughput r as a result of air interface utilization in equation (3). is presented in [7].e. in the next step we take r as the peak UE data rate for dimensioning the S1. estimate the available bandwidth that can be used for the PHB class k. denoted as ρk. can be derived with ρk = LS1(k)/ CS1(k). . which is the maximum average UE data rate. while taking the potential multiplexing gain of bandwidth sharing among different PHB classes into account. In this work. which deploy the IP DiffServ QoS structure. In the following. It is noted that when the air interface utilization pUu is higher the delay factor fUu also becomes higher. let CS1 be the S1 bandwidth. is the result of the air interface model calculated from equation (3). for each individual flow). Given the traffic models and the number of UEs in the cell. we can derive the delay factory fUu with equation (2). and also consider any additional bandwidth if the other PHBs do not fully utilize their allocated bandwidth share. each flow has the ability to fully utilize the whole capacity when no other flow is present in the system [5]. A congested S1 link can result in significant increase of the end-to-end transfer delay. Thus. Let CUu denote the cell capacity (in bps) and LoadUu be the average traffic load in a cell (in bps). Hence. the expected sojourn time (or average transfer time) for transferring a file of length xk can be derived from the basic M/G/R-PS model [3]. assuming that there is no congestion through the transport network (given sufficient capacity).e. per transport priority). we will introduce the detailed modelling of the air interface and the S1 interface individually. Here r. i. since at the air interface there is no QoS prioritization. we consider the case of scheduling all UEs in a cell in a round robin manner. r represents the maximum average UE throughput given an ideal transport network. It is the sum of traffic of all services. It is noted that r is only limited by the air interface capacity. Step 3: For the PHB class k.e.

Step 2: use air interface model (refer to part B) to calculate the delay factor of the Uu interface fUu. Bandwidth Dimensioning for Elastic Traffic For a certain NRT service s (e. we shall we repeat step 1-4 to derive the bandwidth for each NRT service and then take the maximum one to be the required S1 capacity which meets the QoS targets of all NRT services: S1_BW = max. and additional Internet delays. a minimum RTT rttmin is estimated by summing up all delays through the end-to-end path: all node processing delays. the probability that a job has to wait) of Erlang’s delay system. we propose the M/D/1 model in this paper. propagation delays (over the air interface. then the amount of sent data (which are only in the slow start phase) is denoted as xstart. in order to consider the applied IP DiffServ QoS scheme with WFQ scheduler at the S1 interface.g. Thus we can model the packet arrival process with Poisson process. Estimation of the S1 delay for Real Time Traffic The detailed analytical modeling is explained as follows. If the file size is smaller than xslow-start.{CS1(s)}. However. {CS1(k)s}. When the air interface or the S1 links are congested. when a number of RT traffic flows are transported over the S1 interface. the service rate of this RT service is also constant. then the S1 capacity needs to be increased. The RT applications or services. the S1 transport links and the core network). we define LRT(k) as the mean traffic load of this RT service over the PHB class k at the S1 . The dimensioning procedure is given in the following. R E 2 ( Rk . It needs to be noticed that this calculated S1 bandwidth may also include the traffic load of all RT services if there are any.g. S1 delay). For a certain RT service (e. For the PHB class k the overall estimated RTT.e. when loss occurs they do not retransmit packets and have any flow control mechanisms to adjust the data rate under congestion situations. DIMENSIONING MODEL FOR REAL TIME TRAFFIC Different than elastic traffic. for certain RT service the packet size is fixed. Therefore. Moreover. the TCP flows are not always able to utilize their fair share of the available bandwidth. Thus for each PHB class k the required S1 link bandwidth is derived numerically by performing delay calculations for a range of bandwidths until the resulting average transfer delay from a certain S1 bandwidth reaches the defined application delay QoS target of that PHB class. the required QoS of real time (RT) traffic is the mean packet delay through the S1 interface (i. A. Step 5: If there are several NRT services. When the number of RT users is large enough. To calculate the S1 delay for each real time application. we can apply the M/D/1 model to estimate the S1 delay of this RT service. which is on the packet level instead of on the flow level. Step 4: we take the maximum bandwidth of all PHB classes to be the required S1 capacity for the service s: CS1(s) = max. is estimated with equation (8). If the obtained transfer delay of one PHB class can not meet its QoS target. we shall subtract the total RT traffic load (including all protocol overhead) from S1_BW as in equation (9). (8) rtt k = rtt min ⋅ fUu ⋅ f k D. the caused extra delays will be taken into account to the estimated RTT. as it satisfies QoS requirements of each PHB class. In our approach. If there is also certain amount of RT traffic. Furthermore. the second part estimates the time of sending the rest of the data with the available share capacity using the basic M/G/R-PS model. the impact of the TCP slow start is more significant. such as VoIP and video. Thus. assuming Poisson arrival process and deterministic service rate. It can be seen that this calculation requires the information of TCP segment size (MSS) and RTT. the aggregated real time traffic can be modeled as a superposition of fixed-rate packet streams. Step 1: define an initial S1 link capacity C0. we propose to apply the M/D/1 model per PHB class (transport priority). If the network only transmits RT traffic. ⎧⎢ (7) ⎛ ⎡ xk ⎤ ⎞⎥ { } ⎟ ⋅ rtt k + E M / G / R − PS T ( x k − x start k ) ⎪ log ⎜ E ext {T ( x k )} = ⎨ ⎢⎣ 2 ⎜⎝ ⎢⎢ MSS ⎥⎥ ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪ n * ⋅ rtt + E k M / G / R − PS T ( x k − x slow − start k ) ⎩ { } x k < x slow − start k x k ≥ x slow − start k In this extended M/G/R-PS model. (9) S1 _ BW NRT = S1 _ BW − ∑ load ( RT ) j j IV. VoIP). the objective of the S1 dimensioning is to determine necessary S1 bandwidths which satisfy the desired QoS requirements of each PHB class of this NRT service. the computation of the expected transfer time includes two parts: the first part estimates the total time needed for the slow start phase. If we do need to consider the impact of TCP slow start. Ak ) = Ak k Rk ⋅ Rk ! Rk − Ak Rk −1 ∑ i=0 i (6) Rk Ak A Rk + k ⋅ i! Rk ! Rk − Ak The basic M/G/R-PS model assumes ideal capacity sharing among active flows. http or ftp) with a defined QoS target. typically send packets at a fixed rate (according to the given codec rate) with a fixed frame size and frame rate. estimate the average transfer delay for each PHB class of this service with the S1 model (refer to Part C). and thus the resulting transfer delay is longer than the theoretically computed one from the basic M/G/R-PS model. This step will be done for each PHB class of this service and the derived bandwidth required for the PHB class k is CS1(k)s. It is known that the Erlang C formula calculates the delay probability (i. Here n* represents the required number of round trip time (RTTs) before utilizing the available share capacity and xslow-start denotes the amount of data sent within n* RTTs.e. So given certain S1 bandwidth. During the TCP slow start phase the available bandwidth can not be completely utilized at the beginning of transmission. denoted as rttk. to derive the bandwidth only for NRT services. 5] can be applied to calculate the average transfer delay. fk is the delay factor of the TCP flows of the PHB class k over the S1 interface. Step 3: for the given S1 capacity. then an extended M/G/R-PS model proposed in [4. For small file transactions and longer round trip times.which is given in equation (6) with Ak = Rk ρk. it can be assumed that they create a large number of independent packets at the S1 link.

where the objective of the S1 dimensioning needs to fulfill both the end-to-end application delay or throughput of elastic traffic (or NRT services) and a mean packet delay through the S1 interface for real time traffic. In the following. In the first example. Firstly. RESULTS ANALYSIS This section validates the applicability of the proposed analytical models by comparing the analytical results with the LTE system simulation results for different traffic scenarios.e. Step 2: for RT service j. This step will be done for each PHB class of this RT service. The configured S1 link bandwidth is 10Mbps. and then sum up their dimensioned bandwidths to be the required S1 capacity for carrying total RT traffic in the network. Bandwidth Dimensioning for Real Time Traffic For RT traffic the objective of the dimensioning is to find the necessary S1 bandwidth for a mean S1 delay target. Firstly. denoted as CRT(k). Step 3: For the PHB class k. the S1 dimensioning shall combine the dimensioning procedure for both traffic types. 3 shows the average FTP transfer delay in seconds over different S1 utilizations. The FTP traffic model is defined with a constant file size of 2Mbyte or 5Mbyte. It is noted that if all RT traffic is mapped to an EF PHB with a strict transport priority over the elastic traffic. no handover) on the downlink direction. can be derived with equation (12). we apply the dimensioning steps described in section IV to derive the required S1 bandwidth S1_BWRT for supporting all RT services in the network. The eNB consists of 3 cells. Thus for each PHB class k the required S1 link bandwidth is derived numerically by performing delay calculations for a range of bandwidths until the resulting average S1 delay from a certain S1 bandwidth reaches the defined S1 delay target. as it will satisfy the QoS requirements of every PHB class. i. then these extra bandwidths also need to be added to compute the total S1 bandwidth. (13) α k = LS 1 (k ) / θ B. then the S1 capacity needs to be increased. Step 1: define an initial S1 capacity for RT service j.e. S1_BWNRT. The left diagram gives the results for the case of 2Mbyte file and the right one gives the results for 5Mbyte file. VI. and also consider any additional bandwidth if other PHBs do not fully utilize their allocated bandwidth share. and with exponentially distributed inter-arrival time between files. Step 1: With CRT we can estimate the available bandwidth that can be used for this RT service over the PHB class k. denoted as ρRT(k). If there are additional IP bandwidths reserved for the control and signaling traffic. It shall be also noticed that the proposed dimensioning approach can be used for dimensioning of both uplink and downlink bandwidth. The dimensioning procedure is given in the following steps. For the following validations. estimate its mean S1 delay for each PHB class of this service with the above method (refer to equation 10-13). ⎧ ⎪ C RT (k ) = max ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ ⎛ ⎜ wk ⎜ C RT ⋅ ∑i wi ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟.{BWRT(k)j}. i. Fig. we validate the proposed dimensioning model for elastic traffic. BANDWIDTH DIMENSIONING FOR S1 Usually the network transmits both elastic and real time traffic. It shows that CRT(k) has a minimum bandwidth that equals to the allocated bandwidth assigned by the WFQ transport scheduler according to its weight wk (see equation (1)). we estimate the average queue length of the M/D/1 model: 0. we can derive the required S1 bandwidth for supporting all NRT services. Step 3: we take the maximum bandwidth of all PHB classes to be the required S1 capacity for the RT service j: BWRT(j)= max. Let CRT be the total S1 bandwidth needed for this RT service. ⎟ ⎠ ⎫ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ C RT − ∑ LRT ( j ) ⎟ ⎪⎬ ⎜ ⎟ j ≠k ⎝ ⎠ ⎪ ⎭ (10) Step 2: With CRT(k) and the given mean offered traffic LRT(k). At the end. LRT(k). It is seen that for both cases . the bandwidth required for the PHB class k is denoted as BWRT(k) j. In this case. From the proposed dimensioning procedure for elastic traffic (explained in section III part D). (14) S1 _ BW = BW ( j ) RT ∑ RT j V. where the LTE transport network applies the WFQ scheduler to serve different transport priorities. At the end.e. the total required bandwidth for the S1 interface is calculated as a sum of the bandwidth required for individual traffic type in equation (15) (15) S1 _ BW = S1 _ BW NRT + S1 _ BWRT It is noted that this bandwidth is only for the S1 user plane.interface. Each cell has 10 FTP users and in total there are 30 users in the eNB. Step 4: If there are several RT services. with equation (10). there is no prioritization in the transport network. If the obtained S1 delay of one PHB class can not meet the required S1 delay target. all users have the same QoS priority. and the packet length of this RT service θ with equation (13).e. Both analytical results derived from the proposed model based on M/G/R-PS (see section III) and the simulation results obtained from the LTE system simulations are presented and compared against each other. which can be derived from its offered S1 traffic load on the PHB class k. And for real time traffic. we investigate a single eNB scenario without mobility (i. we investigate the scenario with FTP traffic. we apply the M/D/1 model to estimate the S1 delay performance. the mean S1 delay of this RT service on the PHB class k. we repeat step 1-3 to derive the bandwidth for each RT service. each cell with a capacity of 10Mbps. i. The following gives the full steps to calculate the average S1 delay of this RT service transmitted over the PHB class k. Here LRT(k) can be derived by calculating the corresponding application load (as explained in section III) including additional protocol overheads.5 ⋅ ρ RT ( k ) 2 (11) L M / D / 1 ( k ) = ρ RT ( k ) + 1 − ρ RT ( k ) Step 4: Then with Little’s law. can be derived with ρRT(k) = LRT(k)/ CRT(k). the normalized traffic load of the PHB class k. then let CRT(k) = CRT since k = 1 in this case. (12) d M / D / 1 (k ) = L M / D / 1 (k ) / α k Here αk is the packet arrival rate of this RT service over the PHB class k.

ACM SIGCOMM’89. Blake. Wang. The applied voice traffic model uses the G.Premium 0. Görg And A.6 0. of the International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 16).6 Simulation M/D/1 0.6 0.45 0. X. Fig.Basic 0. C.65 0.7 1. The left figure shows the mean transfer delays of premium UEs and the right one shows the delays of the basic UEs. C.4 0. Carlson. in Proc. C.8 0. Z.e. S.2 0.2 0. pp. Fig. J. Average FTP application delay over S1 utilization (2 priorities) Secondly. Bauschert. For the applied WFQ transport scheduler. Dimensioning of UTRAN Iub Links for Elastic Internet Traffic with Multiple Radio Bearers. The presented analytical results match properly with the simulation results.5 0. Li. 4. Internet Engineering Task Force. Analysis and simulation of a fair Queueing algorithm.4 0.55 0.4 0. D.Premium M/D/1 . Experience. 5. We apply the approach described in section IV. Average S1 delay over S1 utilization (VoIP) – no priority 1 Figure 3. Edinburgh.4 0. Average FTP application delay over S1 utilization (no priority) 25 average S1 delay (ms) 30 16 60UEs per eNB (20 UEs per cell) 0.2 0 0.6 0. all VoIP users are transmitted with the same priority.6 S1 utilization 0. Modelling and Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems. First Polish-German Teletraffic Symposium PGTS 2000.6 S1 utilization 0. K.35 0. M. Li. In Proc. Dimensioning of UTRAN Iub Links for Elastic Internet Traffic.5 0. of the 19th International Teletraffic Congress. X. Timm-Giel. CONCLUSION In this paper.25 15 0.2 0 0 0. It shows that the M/D/1 model can give proper evaluation for the average S1 delay (in ms) compared to the simulations in both cases.2 0 10 5 0 1 Simulation Analaytical 0. 1990. Lindberger. while the basic UEs are mapped to BE PHB.4 S1 utilization 0. 4 shows the average FTP transfer time to download a 5Mbyte file for different S1 link utilizations per user priority. .3 0. W. 6 presents the VoIP only scenario with 10 UEs per cell where there are 50% premium users (mapped to AF PHB) and 50% basic users (mapped to BE PHB). Timm-Giel and A. also in Proc. Riedl. Black.8 25 20 0. E.8 0.4 0. 7. 2. Internetworking Res. 4 also demonstrates that the proposed analytical model can provide a suitable estimation for the average application delays for each user priority for the elastic traffic. Shenker.4 0.45 0. In Proc. It demonstrates that the proposed analytical models can appropriately estimate the application performances of different traffic and priorities and thus can be used to dimension the LTE S1 interface. Timm-Giel. R.5 average S1 delay (ms) the calculated average application delays match properly with the simulated delays for different S1 utilizations. A. Li. In these two cases. R. Probst. Perske. In the following examples.6 S1 utilization 0.729A codec (8kbps coding rate) and has a call duration of 90s. December 1998. Davies. Fig.e. Fig. 3. Weiss. A.3 0.2 0.8 S1 delay (basic users) Simulation -Basic M/D/1 . and S. 6.35 0. Bigos. we investigate the scenario with only VoIP traffic. The results in Fig. Schelb.Simulation 12 Analytical average FTP transfer time (s) average FTP tranfer time (s) 14 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.8 0. Pricing and Utilisation in Multiservice Networks with Stream and Elastic Traffic. Balancing Quality of Service. REFERENCES 5 0 0. Nürnberg.8 1 Premium Users (AF PHB) Basic Users (BE PHB) 20 average FTP transfer delay (s) average FTP transfer delay (s) 25 simulation analytical 15 10 5 0 0. 5 presents the mean S1 delay over S1 link utilization for two cases: 10 VoIP UEs per cell (i. using the M/D/1 model per priority class.2 0. S1 utilization Figure 4.55 S1 utilization 0. Keshav. 2006. Average S1 delay over S1 utilization (VoIP) – 2 priorities VII.4 0.45 0. The configured S1 bandwidth is 5Mbps. 0. we validate the proposed dimensioning model for real time traffic. 3–26. Oct. Furthermore. of the 13th GI/ITG Conference Measuring. Klug. Sep.45 Figure 5. 30 UEs per eNB) and 20 VoIP UEs per cell (i.8 S1 delay (premium users) 1 Simulation . A. at Technische Universität Berlin. 3–12. Goerg. A. Request for Comments (Informational) 2475. M. In Proc.2 0.2 0. Dimensioning of the IP-based UMTS Radio Access Network with DiffServ QoS Support. 6 verify the applicability of the M/D/1 model for dimensioning for RT traffic with multiple priorities.5 Simulation M/D/1 average S1 delay (ms) Application Delay (file Size: 5MB) Application Delay (file Size: 2MB) 30UEs per eNB (10 UEs per cell) 0.6 0.2 0 0 0. 2008.4 S1 utilization 0. X. Investigation of the M/G/R Processor Sharing Model for Dimensioning of IP Access Networks with Elastic Traffic. The premiums UEs have higher priority and mapped to AF PHB in the S1 transport network.65 0. pp.8 Figure 6. 60 UEs per eNB). Schelb. and W. Görg and A.7 simulation analytical 20 15 10 average S1 delay (ms) In the second example the LTE network defines two user groups: 50% premium users and 50% basic users. Demers. S. the 19th ITC Specialist Seminar on Network Usage and Traffic (ITC SS 19). we present two different analytical models to dimension the S1 bandwidths for elastic traffic and real time traffic in the LTE access transport network.6 0. October. the weight of BE PHB is 1 whereas the weight of AF PHB is set to 10. The analytical models are validated by comparing with simulation results for various traffic scenarios.4 0. T. Beijing. 1999. An architecture for differentiated services. 0.4 0.4 0. 2005. Scotland.25 0.6 S1 utilization 0.