KPI differences between BR

and BSS
Internal Guideline for Technical
Support

Document History
Document type: Guideline
Creator: Martin Kollar, COO RA SA
Reviewer:
Approver:
Date approved:
Function:

Version Date Version history
0.1 30.06.09 Distributed for review
0.2 03.08.09 Comments for the first version incorporated
0.3 12.08.09 Updated short names of the BR KPIs included in
the chapter 4.5.3 -4.5.6
0.4 03.09.09 • WEdgeLLCUsrThDL and
WGprsLLCUsrThDL: units are kBytes/s a
note added
• UserVolUmCellUL / UserVolUmCellDL:
corresponding BSS KPI needs to be
scaled. Unit is GB so to have
corresponding figure it needs to be
multiplied with 1024*1024*1024*8 =
8.5Mio – a note added
• trf_243 instead tbf_243
• trf_244 instead tbf_244
• chap. “UL signaling TBFs usage ratio”
removed as the KPIs are not comparable
• chap. “TCH Block Rate” removed as the
KPIs are not comparable
• new chap. 4.4.14 “PDCH Utilization Rate
UL, signaling excluded”, 4.1.15 “PDCH
Utilization Rate DL, signaling excluded”,
6.38 “trf_249b” and 6.39 “trf_250b” added
0.5 Chapter 4.3.2 added, trf_249b and 250b
corrected
Tbf_77, tbf_76, tbf_74; tbf_75 removed as seem
to be not reliable on GEMINI side – provide
always too good results
Tbf_72; tbf_73, tbf_78 – removed as on BSS
side provide the results from network while on
BR side from end user point of view
Trf_534 and trf_536 (see chapter 7.32 and 7.33)
added
28.09.09 - added some findings that resulted from KPI’s
verification in Dallas test lab (marked with red
colour)
Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation
2(53)

1.0 05.10.2009 - added traffic profile and BTS configuration

Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation
3(53)

Deleted: 4
Deleted: 7
Table of Contents: Deleted: 8
Document History...................................................................................................................... 2 Deleted: 8
Table of Contents:....................................................................................................................... 4 Deleted: 10
1. Purpose of the Guideline document.................................................................................... 7 Deleted: 11
1.1. Open Issues ................................................................................................................. 8 Deleted: 11
1.2. KPI commitments ....................................................................................................... 8 Deleted: 12
2. Employment of KPIs during GEMINI Upgrade............................................................... 10
Deleted: 12
3. Summary on KPI differences............................................................................................ 11
Deleted: 13
3.1. General Differences .................................................................................................. 11
Deleted: 13
3.2. Differences due to Measurement reports .................................................................. 12
3.3. Differences due to Handover .................................................................................... 12 Deleted: 14

3.4. Differences due to Abis ............................................................................................ 13 Deleted: 14
3.4.1. LAPD multiplexing........................................................................................... 13 Deleted: 15
3.4.2. Traffic ............................................................................................................... 14 Deleted: 16
3.5. Differences due to Extended cells............................................................................. 14 Deleted: 17
3.6. Differences due to Fine tuning of quality thresholds in GEMINI ............................ 15 Deleted: 17
3.7. Power Control Indication due to link failure warning .............................................. 16 Deleted: 17
3.8. AMR signaling.......................................................................................................... 17
Deleted: 17
4. Mapping of top level KPIs................................................................................................ 17
Deleted: 18
4.1. Accessibility.............................................................................................................. 17
4.1.1. Voice call setup success rate BSS..................................................................... 17 Deleted: 18

4.1.2. SDCCH congestion time................................................................................... 18 Deleted: 18
4.1.3. SDCCH Block Rate .......................................................................................... 18 Deleted: 19
4.1.4. SDCCH real blocking ....................................................................................... 18 Deleted: 19
4.1.5. Number of immediate assignment messages sent............................................. 19 Deleted: 19
4.1.6. Number of immediate assignment reject messages sent................................... 19 Deleted: 19
4.1.7. Phantom RACHs............................................................................................... 19 Deleted: 20
4.1.8. TCH congestion time ........................................................................................ 19
Deleted: 20
4.1.9. TCH call blocking, before DR .......................................................................... 20
Deleted: 21
4.1.10. TCH call lossing, before DR............................................................................. 20
Deleted: 21
4.1.11. Queuing time of queued call attempts .............................................................. 21
4.1.12. DL multislot allocation blocking ...................................................................... 21 Deleted: 21

4.1.13. DL multislot soft blocking ................................................................................ 21 Deleted: 22
4.1.14. Downlink TBFs per timeslot............................................................................. 22 Deleted: 22
4.1.15. Combined time slot availability........................................................................ 22 Deleted: 22
4.1.16. AGCH blocking ................................................................................................ 22 Deleted: 23
4.2. Retainability.............................................................................................................. 23 Deleted: 23
4.2.1. SDCCH Drop Rate............................................................................................ 23 Deleted: 23
4.3. Mobility..................................................................................................................... 23
Deleted: 23
4.3.1. Handover Success Rate 2G-2G (w/o intracell HO) ......................................... 23
Deleted: 24
4.3.2. Handover Success Rate..................................................................................... 24
Deleted: 24
4.3.3. Handover Success Rate 2G-3G......................................................................... 24
4.3.4. Total HO failure %............................................................................................ 24 Deleted: 24

4.3.5. Ho drop (2g - 2g, intracell included) ................................................................ 25 Deleted: 25
4.3.6. Handover Drop Rate ......................................................................................... 25 Deleted: 25
4.3.7. Outgoing network controlled cell reselection (NCCR) success ratio ............... 25 Deleted: 25
4.3.8. TBF releases per minute TBF duration caused by Flush-LL............................ 26 Deleted: 26
4.4. Network Usage.......................................................................................................... 26 Deleted: 26
Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation
4(53)

Deleted: 26
Deleted: 26
4.4.1. SDCCH Traffic Carried (based on sampling - mean number of Deleted: 27
busy SDCCHs).................................................................................................................. 26 Deleted: 27
4.4.2. SDCCH Traffic Utilization ............................................................................... 26 Deleted: 27
4.4.3. TCH Traffic Carried ......................................................................................... 27 Deleted: 28
4.4.4. TCH traffic share of HR AMR calls %............................................................. 27 Deleted: 28
4.4.5. TCH traffic share of FR AMR calls % ............................................................. 27
Deleted: 29
4.4.6. TCH traffic share of non AMR calls % ............................................................ 28
Deleted: 29
4.4.7. Network Utilization .......................................................................................... 28
Deleted: 30
4.4.8. Uplink RLC Payload......................................................................................... 29
4.4.9. Downlink RLC Payload.................................................................................... 29 Deleted: 30

4.4.10. Average number of busy packet channels UL .................................................. 30 Deleted: 31
4.4.11. Average number of busy packet channels DL .................................................. 30 Deleted: 31
4.4.12. PDCH Utilization Rate UL ............................................................................... 31 Deleted: 31
4.4.13. PDCH Utilization Rate DL ............................................................................... 31 Deleted: 32
4.4.14. PDCH Utilization Rate UL, signaling excluded ............................................... 31 Deleted: 32
4.4.15. PDCH Utilization Rate DL, signaling excluded ............................................... 32 Deleted: 32
4.4.16. Downlink MCS Distribution............................................................................. 32
Deleted: 33
4.4.17. Share of EDGE requests ................................................................................... 32
Deleted: 33
4.4.18. Gb interface FRL utilization rate UL................................................................ 33
4.4.19. Gb interface FRL utilization rate DL................................................................ 33 Deleted: 33

4.5. Quality / Integrity...................................................................................................... 33 Deleted: 33

4.5.1. UL cumulative quality % in class X ................................................................. 33 Deleted: 34
4.5.2. DL cumulative quality % in class X ................................................................. 34 Deleted: 34
4.5.3. Downlink GPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot ....................................... 34 Deleted: 34
4.5.4. Uplink GPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot............................................ 34 Deleted: 35
4.5.5. Downlink EGPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot..................................... 35 Deleted: 35
4.5.6. Uplink EGPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot ......................................... 35
Deleted: 37
5. Reference configuration.................................................................................................... 37
Deleted: 37
6. Annex1: Verification of some PS KPIs comparison based on different PS approach on
Deleted: 43
BR and BSS side....................................................................................................................... 37
7. Annex2: Additional KPI definitions for non-BM KPIs.................................................... 43 Deleted: 43

7.1. blck_1a...................................................................................................................... 43 Deleted: 43
7.2. blck_5........................................................................................................................ 43 Deleted: 44
7.3. blck_5a...................................................................................................................... 44 Deleted: 44
7.4. blck_8........................................................................................................................ 44 Deleted: 44
7.5. blck_13...................................................................................................................... 44 Deleted: 44
7.6. blck_21b.................................................................................................................... 44 Deleted: 44
7.7. cngt_1........................................................................................................................ 44
Deleted: 45
7.8. cngt_2........................................................................................................................ 45
Deleted: 45
7.9. cssr_5 ........................................................................................................................ 45
Deleted: 45
7.10. csf_11.................................................................................................................... 45
7.11. csf_12.................................................................................................................... 45 Deleted: 45

7.12. csf_14.................................................................................................................... 46 Deleted: 46
7.13. csf_15.................................................................................................................... 46 Deleted: 46
7.14. frl_7b..................................................................................................................... 47 Deleted: 47
7.15. hsr_30.................................................................................................................... 47 Deleted: 47
7.16. hsr_31.................................................................................................................... 47 Deleted: 47
7.17. hfr_68.................................................................................................................... 48 Deleted: 48
7.18. nccr_13.................................................................................................................. 48
Deleted: 48
Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation
5(53)

......... rlc_57 ...................................... trf_534............................................. trf_248a .................. 50 Deleted: 50 7.................20....................................................24.... 53 Deleted: 53 Deleted: 53 Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 6(53) ..26....................................................................................................... trf_7b........................................................................................................... 49 Deleted: 49 7........................................... 50 Deleted: 50 7.......................21...19.............................. 50 Deleted: 50 7....... tbf_63 ...................................................................... trf_250b............................................................29....................31.........................................28.... sd_1b ......................................................................................23. que_10. trf_238........................................22...................27................................................................... 50 Deleted: 50 7........................................................................................................ 48 Deleted: 48 7................................................................ trf_250a ................................................................. 50 Deleted: 50 7............. References.........................................................33.................................................................. 52 Deleted: 52 7........................................................... trf_249b... trf_239......32....................... 49 Deleted: 49 7.................................................................................................... 52 Deleted: 52 7...........25........................ 51 Deleted: 51 7............ sdr_17......................................... trf_249a ........................................................................... 52 Deleted: 51 7.... 7.................................................................................................. 51 Deleted: 51 7... 53 Deleted: 52 8................................................................ 51 7..........................30................................... trf_536............

The referenced releases for the merge project are: • BR10 for BR branch • BSS14 for BSS branch. Objective is to provide customer teams guidance on KPIs correspondence between BR KPIs and BSS KPIs and how KPIs monitored by customers for BR release are expected to be impacted when corresponding BSS KPI is monitored after Gemini implementation (cBSC/eBSC swapped to BSC3i/FlexiBSC) in the network. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 7(53) . S BS BS S S Figure 1 – GEMINI Network Architecture The overall assumptions and principles for the GEMINI program are collected in the GEMINI Master SFS (/1/). The following picture provides a survey on the GEMINI network architecture (source: /1/) Ab Ab Ab is -BR Ab is is. Main content of the GEMINI program is to adapt the BS2xx (BR-BTSplus family) to work with BSC3i via the BSS product line based Abis interface. Purpose of the Guideline document This document is an internal guideline to describe the possible differences between BR and BSS product lines network KPIs for Gemini program.1. Gemini program is Abis adaptation for BTS240 product family to BSC3i product family. Ab is. -BS Ab BS is- BR S is.

1. and the KPI differences presented in this document cannot be used as commitments towards customers and RfQ commitments should not be done based on this document. that for a BS2xx connected to BSC3i the BSC3i set of PM counters and KPIs are employed for performance monitoring. this should not be used for marketing and Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 8(53) . Open Issues • Some Gemini projects will be based on BR9 release. There might be live networks where the KPI difference might not be similar as described in this document since the live network KPI outcome is depending on several items. such as network dimensioning. These sets of KPIs should be comprehensive by providing enough confidence to the GERAN operator that no performance degradation takes place as a consequence of BS2xx reconnection. The main rule for solution 2 is. For these projects an additional KPI description with the corresponding BR9 KPI formulas will be provided during July 2009 time frame. For general statements about performance requirements please refer to the GEMINI System Performance Specification (/2/). The main principles for PM counter collection in a GEMINI network are described in the slide set “PMO Analysis BSxx@BSC3i” (/3/). From the discussed solutions the “Solution 2: BSC3i based solution” has been chosen as basis for the implementation. The present document describes sets of main GERAN PM counter bases KPIs which are recommended to be observed before and after reconnection of a BS2xx from eBSC to BSC3i. Even this document describes that there is no difference observed between corresponding BR and BSS KPI. Thus the most important goal for the present document is to provide the mapping from PM counters and their KPIs for the BR product line (BS2xx. 1.g. planning. this commitment should not be given to customer. eBSC) to the best corresponding KPIs for the BSS product line (BSC3i). Generally the reconnection of a BS2xx from eBSC to BSC3i should not cause any performance degradation from the perspective of the end user (e. KPI commitments The present document. optimization and parameterization. • Experienced lab and field values for the KPIs employed in the present document will be provided by a later edition. speech quality or data throughput) and from the perspective of the network operator (e. Either if this document describes possible improvement to certain BSS KPI when switching from BR KPI. radio capacity). Comparison of tracing functions between BR and BSS product lines is out of scope of the present document 1.g.2.

customer commitment since the likelihood that it cannot be guaranteed in every customer network is high. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 9(53) .

Their observation should be performed at least 2 weeks prior and at least 2 week after BS2xx Deleted: 4 reconnection. BSC impacts /8/. . These KPIs a listed in chapter 4 Mapping of top level KPIs. Adaptation of C/U-plane /7/. Employment of KPIs during GEMINI Upgrade In a GEMINI project the following performance areas are recommended to be observed: • “top level KPIs” for observation of main GERAN performance: Sets of KPIs which an operator of a BR product line and BSS product line GERAN normally would observe continuously (usually on a daily basis).Functional mapping of HO and PWC to BTSE and BSC is different in BR and BSS product line. see: GEMINI SFS. o Detailed observation of utilization of PS related resources (radio channel. o Detailed observations of HO and PWC: Reason: . These KPIs are not GEMINI project specific. RRM. RRM. LAPD. see: GEMINI SFS.GEMINI specific adaptations for LAPD multiplexing in BSC3i. These KPI observations a vital for proper resource dimensioning. • Enhanced set of KPIs for observation of performance for GERAN functional areas where technical concepts are considerably different between BR and BSS product line. Abis and PCU) in GERAN. see: GEMINI SFS. and along with this also the concepts for assignment of Abis and PCU resources to PDCHes depending on their current activity for data transmission. BSC impacts /8/. They should be employed in Gemini projects for more detailed performance observations since technically different concepts cause difficult mapping of BR line configuration parameters to corresponding BSS line configuration parameters o Detailed observation of Abis resource utilization: Reasons: . Even those KPIs are not Gemini specific. but standard BSS14 KPIs. o Observation of possible performance degradations after BS2xx reconnection due to missing features in BSS product line o Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 10(53) . Reason: Concepts for dynamic balancing of contingents of radio resources between CS (TCH) and PS (PDCH) are quite different for BR and BSS product line (BSS line: so called PS Territory concept).2. LAPD.Concept of EDAP (Enhanced Dynamic Abis Pool) in BSS product line versus concept of Flexible Abis in NR product line.

All BSS KPIs and counters are defined in the appendix while the BR ones are defined in the PM KPI Requirement Specification BR10 and related PM counters in the PM counters BR 10 manual (see /10/).6). All the counters can be post-processed and handled as it is in today’s BSS networks.7) Deleted: 3. QUAL and TA per TRX counter (no counters of this type on BSS side) 3. i.e.3. The features are the following ones: Deleted: 3.1– 3. Summary on KPI differences This chapter deals with the main differences between BSS and BR KPIs. It is due to the BSS product line philosophy where only to implement counters within BSC is possible. The GEMINI KPIs are only based on measurement counters reused from BSS.8) • BTS processor load counter (no counters of this type on BSS side) • Correlated RX Lev.8 • AMR signaling (chapter 3.1. General Differences The BR product line KPIs depends on BTS and BSC counters while the BSS product line ones are exclusively based on BSC counters. In order to monitor the Deleted: 3. despite some features are supported in GEMINI there are not any counters within BSC3i to monitor them. BR counters are removed and are not longer supported in GEMINI configuration.6 and Annex2 to find the corresponding KPIs’ partners on BR side). In addition to the above mentioned differences there are also some features with PM limitations.1 differences some BSS KPIs are recommended to be observed (see chapter 4 Deleted: 3.7 • Power Control Indication due to link failure warning (chapter 3. This means also that known post-processing tools for BR PM raw data cannot be used any more (must be exchanged at customer side to equivalent tools for BSS Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 11(53) . The differences depend on the features supported after GEMINI migration and can be sorted to the following groups: • General differences • Differences due to Measurement reports • Differences due to Handover • Differences due to Abis • Differences due to Extended cells • Differences due to Fine tuning of quality thresholds in GEMINI which are described in the following chapters (3.

This may cause increase of Call drop rate and therefore the following BSS KPIs shall be monitored after GEMINI migration: o dcr_5a o dcr_10f o dcr_32a Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 12(53) .001 (0. Differences due to Handover Following BR HOs are not supported in GEMINI anymore: • Compresion/decompression HO for standard FR/HR (non AMR) (intracell). 3.e. . It means that MR based KPI’s and related BSC3i PM counters will not be evaluated from all but only from reduced number of measurement reports). And because the calculation error is equal in absolute value to 1/A before the swap the error is 0. 3. for cumulative quality in class X is given as A/B where A provides the number of samples with the quality in the range up to class X while A provides the total number of samples) it may happen that before the swap it is calculated from 1000 (A) samples while after the swap from 100 (A) samples.01 (1%) which may lead in certain cases to a customer complains because KPI evaluation provides worse values although the system works very well. Because the monitored quantity (RXQUAL. to the same results when calculating the statistical parameters.g. But the effect of insufficient statistical reliability will only be visible for higher N ( >> 16). dispersion) then it leads. Differences due to Measurement reports In BR Measurement Results (Abis counterpart of Measurement Reports sent on radio) are normally not transmitted on Abis since in BR the pre-evaluation of measurement reports for handover and power control decisions is done in the BTS. Furthermore the known KPIs and other results from BR PM data are no more available in this configuration. In GEMINI Measurement Reports (MRs) are sent from BSxx to BSC3i in a certain configurable frequency (every N.2. FER. Because for the most influenced KPI’s the cumulative ratio is calculated (e. can be characterized with the probability of distribution function and statistical parameters like mean value. PM raw data.. In the cells supported by BR with non AMR but high GSM HR usage and compression/ decompression (packing/unpacking) working under some level of interference to observe unpacking due to poor quality it may happen that due to this fact the quality network degradation is possible.th report will be sent from BSxx to BSC3i).3.1 %) while after the swap it is 0.etc. In BSS measurement results (contain averaged results from measurement reports) are always sent on Abis since it is BSC who makes decison for HO & PC. RXLEV. Additionally they are needed for channel allocation based on interference. However the previous statement is only true in case of big number of samples. (i. independent each sample or random sampling (in this case each N-th sample) is used.) is always a random one.

LAPD multiplexing LAPD multiplexing aims at optimizing usage of the LAPD channels by reduction of required signaling bandwidth. Therefore the following BSS KPIs are recommended to be monitored after GEMINI migration: o blck_1a o blck_8i • UMTS better cell handover and UMTS imperative handover – it may have impact on TCH blocking. For the Abis interface controlled by the BSC3i a dedicated LAPD signaling Deleted: Figure 2 channel is foreseen for each TRX (see Figure 2). Each logical LAPD link called TRXSIG has its own physical channel created on PCM line Figure 2 – LAPD muliplexing scenario in BSS side Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 13(53) . Differences due to Abis 3.4. therefore the following BSS KPIs shall be monitored after GEMINI migration: o ulq_2a o dlq_2a o ulq_3 o dlq_3 • Enhanced pairing (intracell) – working under changing load condition which pairs 2 HR calls on different timeslots (TSLs) into 1 TSL.1.4. In BR cells with high HR usage (all timeslots configured as TCH DR) it may have impact on TCH blocking. Therefore the following KPIs are recommended to be monitored after GEMINI migration: o blck_1a o blck_8i 3. and quality degradation.

g.4.LAPD load supervision while BSS one is abi_6a. when BSC3i controls BSxx. However on the other hand it is in accordance to BR side where the measurement LAPD load provides the results on a per LAPD link basis and not TRX basis.2. Deleted: Figure 4 Current BR solution is no longer used in GEMINI. Thus Abis pool (EDAP) resources are only needed for PS activities when high coding schemes are assigned (e. Therefore after GEMINI migration a verification whether EDAP pools have proper size is needed with the following BSS KPIs: • dap_1a (UL) • dap_2b (DL) 3. CS4. In GEMINI. MSC9) since in that case more than one sub-TSL are needed. allowing all the TRXs belonging to the Deleted: Figure 3 same site to be configured on one common physical LAPD link (see Figure 3). Differences due to Extended cells On BR side the principle of extended cell (far area) is based on the double timeslot technique where two consecutive timeslots are used in DL while in BSS side it is based on a per TRX basis where a specific radio propagation delay is considered for extended area TRX and super extended area TRXs (see Figure 4). The related BR KPI (counter) is LAPDLOAD . BSS approach was taken Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 14(53) . Traffic Abispool concept known from BR-Abis implementation consisting of one common pool of Abis sub-TSL for CS and PS will not be used in GEMINI at all. 3. Several logical LAPD links are multiplexed within a single physical channel created on PCM line Figure 3 – LAPD muliplexing scenario in GEMINI Due to this fact the results can not be in GEMINI provided on a per TRX basis as it is on BSS side. Instead Enhanced Dynamic Abis (EDAP) will be used in GEMINI where each radio timeslot has fixed assignment of one Abis sub-TSL. several TRXs can be multiplexed in the same LAPD (just like for “native” BR-Abis).5.

During migration process to GEMINI quality thresholds from BR (C/I thresholds) are converted to BSC3i RxQual parameters according to the following mapping table: In the BSC they are mapped back to C/I according to the following mapping table: Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 15(53) . Differences due to Fine tuning of quality thresholds in GEMINI In BR product line quality thresholds for Handover and Power Control are defined in C/I (0.. 3.20dB)..7). Figure 4 – Example of the configuration with the extended area and super- extended area Due to fact that in GEMINI a FR channel consumes only one timeslot both extended and super-extended area in comparison to BR side where a FR channel always consumes two consecutive timeslots in DL it may happen that some TCH availability KPIs (like uav_14) provide higher values in relation to the available TRXs than expected from BR side experiences.6. In BSS product line quality thresholds for Handover and Power Control are defined in RxQual (0. For example a TRX with 4 timeslots for traffic enables to configure 2 FR channels in far area on BR side while 4 FR channels can be configured in extended area on BSS side (a TRX must be of type E-TRX).

g.5013 providing the number of MS/BS power increase/decrease commands by signal quality cannot be used as they are never triggered in GEMINI because the power control is done in BSxx and BSC3i doesn’t know when the BSxx performs the power control. The counter is related to feature Power Control Indication due to link failure warning which is always activated for BSxx in GEMINI but because no Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 16(53) . c5016. 3.5003 providing the number of MS/BS power increase/decrease commands by signal strength. c5014.10): normal call releases of calls with bad radio quality” Here "bad radio quality" means that the BTS • was not able to decode the last SACCH frames (uplink radio link counter decreased) • or that the last uplink/downlink RXQUAL value is equal 7. Power Control Indication due to link failure warning In BR side there is a counter “NCRLBRQU (2. No any alternative measurements have been implemented due to restricted budget for BSC3i in GEMINI. c5008 . c5018 providing the mean strength level and quality for UL and DL • Unfortunately the counters c5000 . This requires careful parameter audit after migration as e. C/I=4 dB is converted to RxQual 7 and mapped again to C/I=1 dB => this can distort relation between parameters and as a consequence one procedure unintentionally might be triggered before another.7. This might have impact on HO and PC behaviour therefore the following BSS KPI related to HO performance shall be monitored: • hsr_31 in addition it may cause Call Drop rate increase therefore following BSS KPIs shall be monitored: • dcr_5a • dcr_10f • dcr_32a interference level degradation which requires monitoring of the measurement type CI_RATIO and related BSS KPIs shall be monitored: • ci_1 – ci_8 and power control related BSS counters shall be monitored: • c5012.

• A major deviation in KPI comparison is a deviation that has a major effect in demonstrating to an operator the correct functionality that can alter the prognosis or proposals provided by network planning and optimization department.1.3.b cssr_5 BR-BSS Match Minor deviation Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some negligible deviations in NSN lab testing (absolute error on the range about tenths of %). In other words said if hypothetically the BR KPI was used on BSS side and vice versa the impacts in demonstrating to an operator the correct functionality would be negligible. AMR signaling The AMR signaling measurements are not implemented in the first GEMINI release but the plan is to implement them in the next GEMINI release. Mapping of top level KPIs This chapter defines a minimum set of corresponding KPIs between BR and BSS product lines (“top level KPIs”). Voice call setup success rate BSS BR KPI BSS KPI 6. 3.1. Accessibility 4. which should be monitored in a Gemini project. 4.8. The definitions for the BR product line KPIs are defined in the BR10 KPI requirement specification (see /6/) The definitions for the BSS product line KPIs are defined in: • For BM (Benchmark KPIs): BSS14 BP KPI customer document (see /4/) Deleted: Annex2: Additional • For non-BM KPIs: see Annex2: Additional KPI definitions for non-BM KPIs KPI definitions for non-BM KPIs KPI deviations can be major or minor ones. corresponding feature on BSS side there is also not any BSS counter within BSC3ito monitor the feature. But Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 17(53) . • A minor error is one that does not have a major effect in demonstrating to an operator the correct functionality that can alter the prognosis or proposals provided by network planning and optimization department. 4.1.

4.2. SDCCH congestion time BR KPI BSS KPI ASDCALTI [1] (PM counter) cngt_2 BR-BSS Match Full match 4.5 blck_5 BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 did not show any differences. In the North formula to count number of attempts to seize an SDCCH means to count the channel request not only for new call but also for HO) Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 in NSN lab testing showed negligible differences between the KPIs due to fact that attempted can Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 18(53) .1.1. it shall be noted that neither interference nor AGCH blocking introduced into the tests.1. 4. SDCCH real blocking BR KPI BSS KPI 3. SDCCH Block Rate BR KPI BSS KPI 10.3.8a blck_5a BR-BSS Match Minor deviation (the South formula can counts also Immediate Ass procedures for FACCH in case direct TCH assignment feature is enabled.1. 4. Both KPIs were equal to 0 but it should be note that no tests done to introduce any blocking.

Number of immediate assignment reject messages sent BR KPI BSS KPI TACCBPRO[3] . It should be note that no tests done to introduce any blocking. 4.PM counter BR-BSS Match Full match 4. TCH congestion time BR KPI BSS KPI Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 19(53) .6a sd_1b BR-BSS Match Full match 4.7.6.5.counter C3002 BR-BSS Match Full match 4.1.1.1. Number of immediate assignment messages sent BR KPI BSS KPI TACCBPRO[2] – PM counter C3001 . Phantom RACHs BR KPI BSS KPI 3. arrive in one however evaluated in the next GP.1.8.

Thanks to fact that CS and PS territory strictly separated the amount of intracell HOs due to GPRS is negligible on BSS side. 4. i. before DR BR KPI BSS KPI 5. Comment: Testing with reference configuration 2 in NSN lab testing showed that in case of higher traffic the BR KPI may be on the range about tenths of % while GEMINI KPI equal to 0.10. Detailed analysis showed it is due to different PS policy in BSS and BR side.4f blck_8 Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 20(53) . AALTCHTI [1] – PM counter cngt_1 BR-BSS Match Full match 4.1. On the other hand in BSS side a PS territory defined (using the attribute CDEF) and those channels within the territory are only for PS traffic. The reason for the light blocking was quite high number of intracell handovers with the cause: “Forced handover due to multislot calls” to make some reorganization. In BR side the dynamic channels shared between CS and PS traffic (defined using the attribute GPDPDTCHA) are primarly for CS traffic (those channels can be assigned to GPRS or EDGE only if possible.1. TCH call blocking. TCH call lossing. according to current CS traffic situation).e.9.4a blck_8i BR-BSS Match Minor deviation In the denominator of the formula (5. before DR BR KPI BSS KPI 5. But the territory can be upgraded/downgraded according to current CS traffic situation.4a) the total number of assignment procedures started by MSC is considered while in the denominator of the formula (blck_8i) this number is decreased by the unsuccessful TCH assignments which were followed by DR. for example if there are two HR calls on two timeslots then to move them into one timeslots and to free the second one for PS call.

DL multislot allocation blocking BR KPI BSS KPI TBFEstFailRateConDL tbf_16b BR-BSS Match Full match 4.1.12.1.1. Queuing time of queued call attempts BR KPI BSS KPI MDURTCRQ[1] FR. que_10 MDURTCRQ[2] HR BR-BSS Match Minor deviation The que_10 considers all successful and unsuccessful case however in BR side only the cases when the TCH request can be satisfied before expiry of T11 or TQHO or when it is discarded because the queue is already full and the queue place is "preempted" by a new TCH request with a higher "priority" value. BR-BSS Match Full match A TCH is considered as a lost one if the TCH req has been rejected due to lack of resources or routed by DR to another cell. In addition the BR measurement provides the results separately for FR and HR call attempts and HO procedure. DL multislot soft blocking Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 21(53) .13. 4. 4. It means that the case when the timers for maximum queuing duration T11 or TQHO expire are not considered.11.

BR KPI BSS KPI PercentTSLAchievedDL tbf_33b BR-BSS Match Full match 4.1. Combined time slot availability BR KPI BSS KPI MeaAvChC (9.2) ava_1g BR-BSS Match Full match 4.2. Downlink TBFs per timeslot BR KPI BSS KPI MeanTBFMultiplPDCHDL tbf_38d BR-BSS Match Minor deviation Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 with higher CS traffic in NSN lab testing showed that there can be quite big differences between BSS and BR KPI (BSS value twice higher than BR one) and GEMINI (BSC3i) side due to different PS approach (on BR side horizontal and vertical algorithms while multislot TBF on BSS side used).1.14. AGCH blocking Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 22(53) .15.1. 4.16.

Retainability 4. Both KPIs were equal to 0 but it should be note that no interference and fading included into the tests. 4.6) blck_13 (CS) blck_21b (PS) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation 4.2. Handover Success Rate 2G-2G (w/o intracell HO) BR KPI BSS KPI HOSuccRate2G2G (15. Mobility 4.1. SDCCH Drop Rate BR KPI BSS KPI SDCCHDropRatTCHAssFail sdr_17 (8.1. BR KPI BSS KPI AGCHLossRate (11.2.5a) BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 did not show any differences.3.3.1.2) hsr_31 BR-BSS Match Full match Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 23(53) .

6). 4.2.3) BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some differences between the KPIs (see chap. 4.3.3. Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some differences between the KPIs (see chap.5.1. 4. Total HO failure % BR KPI BSS KPI HOUnSuccRate2G2G hfr_2a (15. 4.4.3. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 24(53) . Handover Success Rate BR KPI BSS KPI HOSuccRate (15.3.3. 4.3.5.6. Handover Success Rate 2G-3G BR KPI BSS KPI HOSuccRate2G3G (15.6).5.1.3.3.3.8e) hsr_28 BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some differences between the KPIs (see chap. 4.3.6). 4. 4.3G HO calls during the testing in NSN test lab. 4.4) hsr_30 BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: No 2G .

8h) hfr_68 BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some differences between the KPIs (BR KPI on the range up to 0. Ho drop (2g .9 %). It seems on GEMINI performance issue (degradation due to fact that since CORR16 the intercell HOs has not been working at all.3.3. 4.5. 4.6.6. 4.9 %). problem has been fixed from CORR19 but with the mentioned issue). problem has been fixed from CORR19 but with the mentioned issue).24 % while BSS one in the range up to 0.8g) hfr_68c BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed some differences between the KPIs (BR KPI on the range up to 0. Outgoing network controlled cell reselection (NCCR) success ratio BR KPI BSS KPI NCIntrBSCCellSucRate nccr_13 BR-BSS Match Minor deviation Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 25(53) . intracell included) BR KPI BSS KPI HODropRate2G2G (15.7.3.24 % while BSS one in the range up to 0.2g.6. It seems on GEMINI performance issue (degradation due to fact that since CORR16 the intercell HOs has not been working at all. Handover Drop Rate BR KPI BSS KPI HODropRate (15.

1.2.4.1. Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 shows some deviations in NSN lab testing (slightly lower value in Erlangs for BSS line in comparison to BR line.7a) trf_7b BR-BSS Match Minor deviation (the BR formula based on sampling method while the BSS one on mean SDCCH holding time in evaluation of the number of busy SDCCHs) . 4. SDCCH Traffic Carried (based on sampling .4. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 26(53) .mean number of busy SDCCHs) BR KPI BSS KPI SDCCH TrafCarr (10.2) trf_11b BR-BSS Match Full match.4.8. SDCCH Traffic Utilization BR KPI BSS KPI SDCCHTrafUtil (10. 4.3. relative error on the range about ones of %) due to fact that different sampling period 20s on BSS while 500ms on BR side applied. TBF releases per minute TBF duration caused by Flush-LL BR KPI BSS KPI TBFRelFlushMin tbf_63(UL) tbf_64(DL) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation 4. Network Usage 4.1.

4.5. TCH Traffic Carried BR KPI BSS KPI TCHTrafCarrDR (9.3. TCH traffic share of HR AMR calls % BR KPI BSS KPI TCHShareHRAMR (16. Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 confirmed the possible deviations in NSN lab testing in such a way that slightly lower value for BSS line in comparison to BR line observed.3. absolute shall not exceed 2 %). 4.21b) BR-BSS Match Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 27(53) .4. TCH traffic share of FR AMR calls % BR KPI BSS KPI TCHShareFRNBAMR trf_121 (16. 4. relative error on the range about tenths of %) due to fact that different sampling period 20s on BSS while 500ms on BR side applied.4.c) trf_1d BR-BSS Match Minor deviation (due to different sampling) Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 shows some deviations in NSN lab testing (slightly lower value in Erlangs for BSS line in comparison to BR line. 4.21a) trf_122a BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 shows some deviations in NSN lab testing due to fact that different algorithms used in BR and BSS side for HR usage.1.4.

they do not need to be declared in the DB as in South implementation (TCHSD in TCHSD pool.4.6. Detailed analysis showed it is due to different using of dynamic PS channels in BSS and BR side.4. according to current PS traffic situation) therefore the channels are not counted in the BSS formula.21 TCHs TCH traffic carried GEMINI (trf_1d) = 16. Example: From a test for configuration 2 in NSN test lab resulted the following: TCH traffic carried BR (9. . i.see chapter 4.4.3c) = 16.e. i. Full match 4. In addition it shall be also considered different sampling in mean SDCCH calculation .1. according to current CS traffic situation) therefore all the channels are counted in the BR formula.7.e. TCH traffic share of non AMR calls % BR KPI BSS KPI TCHSharenonAMR (16. In BSS implementation the TCH can be used as SD in SD congestion scenario. Network Utilization BR KPI BSS KPI NTWUtilization (9. On the other hand in BSS side the dynamic channels (defined using the attribute CDEF) are primarly for PS traffic (those channels can be assigned to CS only if possible.21d) trf_120a BR-BSS Match Full match 4.1. In BR side the dynamic channels shared between CS and PS traffic (defined using the attribute GPDPDTCHA) are primarly for CS traffic (those channels can be assigned to GPRS or EDGE only if possible.3) Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed quite big differences between the KPI values.9) trf_248a BR-BSS Match Minor deviation (The BR KPI does not count the TCHSD in TCHSD_pool (if any) as defined resources.267 TCHs Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 28(53) .

Unit is GB so to have corresponding figure it needs to be multiplied with 1024*1024*1024*8/1000 = 8.g.17a) trf_243 BR-BSS Match Minor deviation.4. Preventive retransmissions by the MS which are counted as data volume on BR side are the reason. 60 counted in the BR formula (9.01 % Network Utilization GEMINI (trf_248a) = 57.8.4. blocks are counted as maximum length corresponding to applied coding scheme. i.9) = 27. This may cause an increase in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI (for short duration TBF (GMM/SM activities) the error is larger than for medium or long duration TBFs (e.1. The remaining 30 TSLs belong to PS territory and therefore can only be used for PS calls. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 1 and 2 showed quite big differences between the KPI values (the relative error about 30 % .e. TBF for WAP session or ftp)).6 x 106. In addition the length field in RLC data block is considered in BR formula while in BSS formula not considered.48 % The reason of such finding is that on BR side the total number of defined TSLs.21/60 = 0. Downlink RLC Payload Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 29(53) .9. Uplink RLC Payload BR KPI BSS KPI UserVolUmCellUL (18. i. . 4.2701 (27. .9) [16. BSS KPI needs to be scaled. 4. .2. However Network Utilization BR (9.01 %)] while on BSS side despite the total number of defined TSLs is the same only 30 of them counted within trf_248a as the attribute CDEF set to 55 % and in addition the PS territory may be upgraded/downgraded in dependence on CS traffic situation. Preventive retransmissions by the MS are counted as data volume. This may cause on the other hand slight decrease in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI.e.1.BR KPI is always higher than BSS one).

4. .4. Unit is GB so to have corresponding figure it needs to be multiplied with 1024*1024*1024*8/1000 = 8.g. TBF for WAP session or ftp)).17b) trf_244 BR-BSS Match Minor deviation . BSS KPI needs to be scaled. Dummy blocks are counted as data volume. .4. 4. This may cause an increase in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI (for short duration TBF (GMM/SM activities) the error is larger than for medium or long duration TBFs (e. Average number of busy packet channels DL BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHBusyCellDL trf_239 (18. BR KPI BSS KPI UserVolUmCellDL (18. Length field in RLC data block is considered in BR formula while in BSS formula not considered.11.e.6 x 106. Average number of busy packet channels UL BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHBusyCellUL trf_238 (18. i. This may cause a slight decrease in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI.2. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed the KPIs provide quite similar values (the relative error below 10 %).7e) BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).10.7f) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 30(53) . blocks are counted as maximum length corresponding to applied coding scheme.2.2.

4. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).4.4.8b) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation. signaling excluded BR KPI BSS KPI Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 31(53) . PDCH Utilization Rate UL. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic.13. 4.2. PDCH Utilization Rate DL BR KPI BSS KPI MeanBusyPdchUtilCellDL trf_250a (18.2. 4.4. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1). PDCH Utilization Rate UL BR KPI BSS KPI MeanBusyPdchUtilCellUL trf_249a (18. BR-BSS Match Full match Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).14.12. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic.8a) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation.

4. 4.17.16.8d) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation. MeanBusyPdchUtilCellULSigExc trf_249b (18. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic.4. PDCH Utilization Rate DL. Share of EDGE requests BR KPI BSS KPI Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 32(53) .15. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).4. signaling excluded BR KPI BSS KPI MeanBusyPdchUtilCellDLSigExc trf_250b (18. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).4.2.2.8c) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation.5.3.d) rlc_57 BR-BSS Match Full match 4. Downlink MCS Distribution BR KPI BSS KPI CSDistrEGPRSDL (18.

1. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 confirmed some differences between the KPIs (BR KPI provides slightly higher values but relative error was below 3 %) 4.19.8d) ulq_2a.5.18. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 confirmed some differences between the KPIs (BR KPI provides slightly higher values but relative error was below 2 %). UL cumulative quality % in class X BR KPI BSS KPI RxQuCumUL[n] (16.4. Quality / Integrity 4.4. 4.5. ShareEgprsRequ tbf_65b BR-BSS Match Full match 4. Gb interface FRL utilization rate DL BR KPI BSS KPI FRLUtilDL frl_8b BR-BSS Match Minor deviation BR formula includes NS signaling while BSS one does not. X=5 Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 33(53) . Gb interface FRL utilization rate UL BR KPI BSS KPI FRLUtilUL frl_7b BR-BSS Match Minor deviation BR formula includes NS signaling while BSS one does not.

4.5.2. . 4.8d) dlq_2a. Pre-emptive retransmissions are considered like retransmission due to bad radio quality in BR side while in BSS they are not counted in the related retransmissions counter. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic.5.5. This may cause a slight decrease in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1). DL cumulative quality % in class X BR KPI BSS KPI RxQuCumDL[n] (16. BR-BSS Match Full Match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 did not show any significant differences between the KPIs. 4.2.14c) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation . Downlink GPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHThroughputGprsDL trf_235b (18.3. X=5 BR-BSS Match Full Match Comment: Testing in NSN lab testing with reference configuration 1 and 2 did not show any significant differences between the KPIs. Uplink GPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 34(53) .4.

BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHThroughputGprsUL trf_233c (18.14a) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation . BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic.2. . TBF for WAP session or ftp)). This may cause slight decrease in calculation of the BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI.5.5. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1).6.5. Preventive retransmissions by the MS are counted as data volume. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic. 4. This may cause an increase in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI (for short duration TBF (GMM/SM activities) the error is larger than for medium or long duration TBFs (e. 4.2.14d) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation . .g. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1). Pre-emptive retransmissions are considered like retransmission due to bad radio quality in BR side while in BSS they are not counted in the related retransmissions counter. Uplink EGPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 35(53) . Downlink EGPRS RLC throughput per radio timeslot BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHThroughputEdgeDL trf_236 (18.

Preventive retransmissions by the MS are counted as data volume. BSS KPI considers only RLC Ack while BR one both Ack and Unack mode traffic. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 36(53) . . BR KPI BSS KPI MeanPDCHThroughputEdgeUL trf_234 (18.14b) BR-BSS Match Minor deviation . This may cause an increase in calculation of BR KPI in comparison to BSS KPI (for short duration TBF (GMM/SM activities) the error is larger than for medium or long duration TBFs (e.2.g. Comment: Testing in NSN test lab with reference configuration 2 and 3 showed that these KPIs can not be evaluated separately but only in a combination to other ones due to different PS approach used on BR and BSS side (see Annex1). TBF for WAP session or ftp)).

More detailed information about the attributes setting including also BSC can be found in the following attached document for BR D:\PM\ North_South_Grouprd step\GEMINI\KPI Spec\pre IUS\Traffic Profile\cmd30022_06172009. Reference configuration The tests were done with the following configurations: Configuration 1: CS only (see attached traffic profile) D:\PM\ North_South_Grouprd step\GEMINI\KPI Spec\pre IUS\Traffic Profile\CS Only Traffic Profile_v1.1.zip 6. This fact then Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 37(53) .14 “Downlink TBFs per timeslot” (the same also holds for UL direction) despite the KPis are comparable due to different PS approach (on BR side horizontal and vertical algorithms while multislot TBF on BSS side used) there may be quite big differences between them.xls Configuration 3: PS only (see attached traffic profile) D:\PM\ North_South_Grouprd step\GEMINI\KPI Spec\pre IUS\Traffic Profile\PS Only Traffic Profile_v1.xls Configuration 2: Mixed CS and PS (see attached traffic profile) D:\PM\ North_South_Grouprd step\GEMINI\KPI Spec\pre IUS\Traffic Profile\Reduced_Mixed CS_PS Traffic Profile_v1.5.asc and GEMINI line: D:\PM\ North_South_Grouprd step\GEMINI\KPI Spec\pre IUS\Traffic Profile\GEMINI_PARAMETERS_07292009. Annex1: Verification of some PS KPIs comparison based on different PS approach on BR and BSS side The intention of the part is to show that despite some PS KPIs show different results before and after the swap at the final end they are leading to the same overall result which is in this case RLC payload.xls BTS configuration for all the profiles was: 4+4 1900/800 : EGPRS enabled. As mentioned in the chapter 4.

5. Taking into account the definitions of the above mentioned KPIs for the UL RLC payload on BSS side we can write that UL _ RLC _ Payload (trf _ 243) = UL _ Aver _ Busy _ PS _ channels(trf _ 238)x xUL _ PDCH _ Util _ Rate _ sign _ exc(trf _ 249b ) x xUL _ EDGE _ Trhroughput _ TSL(trf _ 234)xGPx60 (1) where only EGPRS traffic considered as GPRS traffic was excluded from the tests. PDCH Utilization rate UL/DL (chapter 4.4.4.14/4.4.4. Last but not the least it must be considered that algorithms for link adaptation implemented within eBSC and BSC3i are also different. Even the “Downlink/Uplink TBFs per timeslot” and initial coding schemes are the same for BR and BSS side does not mean the above mentioned KPIs will be the same on both sides.11).3 . (1) we receive for UL_EDGE_Throughput_TSL that UL _ RLC _ Payload (trf _ 243) UL _ EDGE _ Trhroughpu t _ TSL (Cal ) = UL _ Aver _ Busy _ PS _ channels (trf _ 238)x    (2)  xUL _ PDCH _ Util _ Rate _ sign _ exc(trf _ 249b )  xGPx60    where Cal in the brackets means “Calculated”. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 38(53) .4.15.4.4. (2) the measured (trf_234) and calculated UL EDGE Throughput per TSL curves can be seen in Figure 5. PDCH Utilization rate. As an example in order to prove the stability of Eq. On BR side flexible while on BSS side dynamic Abis used which may lead to some differences in the frequentness of using the coding schemes. signaling excluded UL/DL (chapter 4.13) as well as UL/DL Throughput per TSL (chapter 4.12/4.5.10/4. may also lead to the differences in UL/DL Average Busy PDCH (chapter 4.6) before and after the swap. Then from the Eq. The reason here is different Abis concept before and after the swap.

Corresponding relative error [%] in calculation of UL EDGE Throughput per TSL is shown in Figure 6 which only confirms that the calculation is done with quite good precision (relative error in the range from -0. It should be noted that the above results are related to tests in NSN test lab where only ack traffic mode used while in practice some amount of unack mode traffic is also realistic which may lead to an error increase due to fact that trf_243 counts both ack and unack while trf_249b and trf_234 only ack mode traffic.5 to 3 %).5 53 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 Figure 5 – measured (trf_234) and calculated UL EDGE Throughput per TSL curves (x is a time axis given in GP).5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -0.5 -1 Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 39(53) .5 Relative error in calculation of UL EDGE 1 Throughput TSL 0. Relative error in calculation of UL EDGE Throughput TSL 3.5 3 2.5 55 measured UL EDGE Throughput TSL (trf_234) 54.5 Calculated UL EDGE Throughput TSL 54 53. 56 55.5 2 1. But using only ack mode shall be a must.

(4) the measured (18.14b )xGPx60 (3) where only EGPRS traffic considered as GPRS traffic was excluded from the tests. Similar equation we can be constructed for DL RLC payload on BR side where UL _ RLC _ Payload (18.17a) and calculated UL EDGE Throughput per TSL curves can be seen in Figure 7.2.2. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 40(53) . Figure 6 – Relative error in calculation of UL EDGE Throughput per TSL (x is a time axis given in GP).17a ) = UL _ Aver _ Busy _ PS _ channels(18.2.2.2.2. Then from the Eq. (3) we receive for UL_EDGE_Throughput_TSL that UL _ RLC _ Payload (18.8c )  xGPx60    (4) As an example in order to prove the stability of Eq.7e )x xUL _ PDCH _ Util _ Rate _ sign _ exc(18.2.17a ) UL _ EDGE _ Trhroughput _ TSL (Cal ) = UL _ Aver _ Busy _ PS _ channels(18.17a) and calculated UL EDGE Throughput per TSL curves (x is a time axis given in GP).2.8c ) x xUL _ EDGE _ Trhroughput _ TSL (18. 25 20 15 UL EGPRS throughput per TSL measured UL EGPRS throughput 10 per TSL calculated 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Figure 7 – measured (18.7e )x     xUL _ PDCH _ Util _ Rate _ sign _ exc(18.2.

4.4. The customer shall therefore be instructed when dealing the above mentioned KPIs before and after the swap are comparable or not to evaluate always overall situation as described in this part and not only to concentrate on one KPI’s pair.8c) in the Eq.17a).8) length field in RLC data block is considered while in formula (18. In this relative error in the range up to - 6 %). Corresponding relative error [%] in the calculation of UL EDGE Throughput per TSL is shown in Figure 8.2.2. While when comparing them before and after the swap quite big differences may be observed which as already mentioned due to different PS approach on BR and BSS side although at the final end they are leading to the similar overall result which is in this case RLC payload (some differences are possible see chapter 4. 4 blocks are counted as maximum length corresponding to applied coding scheme.. In other words said there can be for example a case where the throughput per TSL is substantially higher on BSS side.8). From the above verification of the Eq. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 41(53) .It must be taken into account that within UL RLC Payload (see chapter 4. This explains why on BR side the calculated UL RLC payload is equal or less than measured one (18. 1 – 4 it follows that the related KPIs provide the correct results when evaluating them separately for BR and BSS and therefore shall be comparable. Error in calculation UL EGPRS throughput BR side 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -1 -2 -3 Error in calculation UL EGPRS throughput BR -4 side -5 -6 -7 Figure 8 – Relative error in calculation of UL EDGE Throughput per TSL (x is a time axis given in GP). Average Busy of PDCH are similar on both sides however at the final end the RLC Throughput is similar because PDCH Utilization rate substantially higher on BR side as can be seen in the next table. To reconfigure something in the network before and/or after the swap just to get the same KPI values seems not to be a good step as BTS+ on BR side works the best with the eBSC setting while on GEMINI side with BSC3i settings.

1. But the difference in addition can also be described using incremental redundancy (IR) feature.75 % 23. UL EGPRS UL PDCH UL Aver Busy UL RLC Payload Throughput per Utilization rate. For example.98 kbits/s 18.1.33 kbits/s 60. and for MCS-9. The next graph shows a dependence of the RLC throughput per TSL on SNR (C/I) for MCS 6 and MCS 9 with and without IR feature. This is allowed and typically occurs when the transmission only requires as many radio blocks as are available using an alternate MCS. it can be observed an MCS different than the one commanded being used for the Uplink TBF during additional transmissions as well. PDCH TSL signaling exc 53. where included that: For example for the first transmission of RLC data blocks. However related to real network combined GPRS and EGPRS traffic is more realistic.403 884000 kbits Note1: In order to get the correct results in the above Eq. 2 and 4 UL RLC payload must be in kbits.60 Section 8. MCS-5 is used.54 % 22. The results for MCS9 with IR shows that the codec my have similar or sometimes better characteristics than MCS6. and the mobile station only needs to send one RLC data block.83 858237 kbits 18. which sends only one data block and is also more robust. Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 42(53) . Note3: The described evidence using the above equations is only valid for the network with GPRS or EGPRS traffic. Note4: Related to above table why on BSS side MCS 9 codec scheme mainly used while on BR side MCS6 mainly used can be explained referring the 3GPP TS 04. if the commanded MCS is MCS-9 which sends 2 RLC data blocks. MCS-6 is used. Additionally. UL PDCH utilization rate as non-dimensional value (not %) and GP in minutes. it may choose to send it using MCS-6. Note2: Similar analysis can be done for DL EDGE. when the commanded MCS is MCS-7. Therefore in this case instead “UL/DL GPRS/EGPRS throughput per TSL” the UL/DL throughput per TSL” KPIs are recommended to be used (trf_536 for DL and trf_534 for UL).

As it has been showed MCS9 in comparison to MCS6 may have very similar characteristics (robustness. Deleted: 4 NetAct syntax is used in the formula definitions.…). See reference /4/. Annex2: Additional KPI definitions for non-BM KPIs That chapter provides KPI formulas for BSS14 KPIs which are employed in chapter 4 Mapping of top level KPIs for KPIs which are no BM (Benchmark) KPIs. blck_5 sum(sdcch_busy_att(c001001)) blck_5 = 100 ⋅ sum(sdcch_seiz_att(c001000)) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 43(53) .tch_rej_due_req_ch_a_if_crc(c001122)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_traffic 7. blck_1a sum(tch_req_rej_lack(c001011) . 7. So in other words said to observe quite big differences in the throughput per TSL values before and after the swap must not immediately mean something wrong and incorrect.2. 7.tch_rej_due_req_ch_a_if_crc(c001122)) blck_1a = 100. BLER.1. sum(tch_request(c001010) . Remark: The KPI formulas for BM KPIs are provided in BSS14 customer documentation.

4. cngt_1 cngt_1 = sum(tch_cong_time(c002026)/100) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 44(53) .7.5. blck_8 sum(tch_call_req(c001026) . blck_21b sum(packet_immed_ass_nack_msg(c072086)) blck_21b = 100 ⋅ sum(packet_immed_ass_ack_msg(c072085)) + packet_immed_ass_nack_msg(c072086) 7.3. blck_5a sum(sdcch_busy_att(c001001) .tch_seiz_due_sdcch_con(c01099)) blck_5a = 100 ⋅ sum(sdcch_seiz_att(c001000)) 7. blck_13 sum(del_ind_msg_rec(c003005)) blck_13 = 100 ⋅ sum(imm_assgn_rej(c003002) + imm_assgn_sent(c003001)) 7. 7.6.tch_norm_seiz(c001009)) blck_8 = 100 ⋅ sum(tch_call_req(c0010026)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_traffic 7.

csf_12 sum(sdcch_assign(c001007) + t3101_expired(c057020)) csf_12 = 100 ⋅ sum(served_sdcch_req(c057019)) Counters from table(s): Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 45(53) .8.11. cngt_2 cngt_2 = sum(sdcch_cong_time(c002033)/100) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_res_avail 7.sdr_4) ⋅ csf_14 ⋅ csf_15 cssr_5 = 1004 sdr_4 is a Benchmark KPI (see /4/) 7.10. cssr_5 csf_11⋅ csf_12 ⋅ (1 .9. Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_res_avail 7. csf_11 sum(served_sdcch_req(c0057019) + served_facch_req(c0057018) ) csf_11 = 100 ⋅ sum(sdcch_req(c0057017)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_service 7.

served_dr_req(c057031) + a.tch_new_call_assign(c 057033)) csf_15 = 100 ⋅ sum( b. a = source cell .served_tch_call_req(c 057030)) csf_14 = 100 ⋅ sum(a.tch_call_req(c001026)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_service. b = target 7.13. p_nbsc_service 7.served_facch_re q(c 057018)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_service. a = source.served_tch_call_req(c 057030) + a.12. b = target cell Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 46(53) .served_dr_req(c 057031) + a. csf_14 sum(b. csf_15 sum(a.

bsc_o_ho_cmd_assgn(c 001196) ) Counters from table(s): a = p_nbsc_ho b = p_nbsc_traffic Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 47(53) . 7.msc_o_succ_ho(c 004004) + a.bsc_o_succ_ho(c 004014) ) hsr_31 = 100 ⋅ sum(b.msc_o_ho_cmd(c 001195) + b.committed_info_rate *16) frbc object_instance = bearer_id in p_nbsc_frame_relay 7. frl_7b sum(8 * (dlci_1_bytes_sent(c 074013) + dlci_2_bytes_sent(c 074025) + dlci_3_bytes_sent(c 074037) + dlci_4_bytes_sent(c 074049) + dlci_5_bytes_sent(c 074061) + dlci_6_bytes_sent(c 074073) + dlci_7_bytes_sent(c 074085) + dlci_8_bytes_sent(c 074097) + dlci_9_bytes_sent(c 074109) + dlci_10_bytes_sent(074121) + dlci_11_bytes_sent(c 074133) + dlci_12_bytes_sent(c 074145) + dlci_13_bytes_sent(c 074157) + dlci_14_bytes_sent(c 074169) + dlci_15_bytes_sent(c 074181) + dlci_16_bytes_sent(c 074193))/(period_duration * 60)) frl_7b = 100 ⋅ sum per frbc over all unlocked child nsvc (c_nsvc.15. hsr_30 sum(MSC_TO_WCDMA_RAN_SUCC_TCH_ HO(c 004158)) hsr_30 = 100 ⋅ sum(MSC_TCH_HO_WCDMA_RAN_ATT(c 004150)) 7.14.16. hsr_31 sum(a.

sum(msc_o_fail_lack(c 004055) + bsc_o_fail_lack(c 004072) + cell_fail_lack(c 004019))     / * handovers failing due to not allowed * /   .18. 7. nccr_13 nccr_succ_flush_received(c 095012) nccr_13 = 100 ⋅ nccr_1 nccr_1 = a.NCCR_SERV_ISNCCR_NO_GOOD_NEIG(c 072186) + a.sum(bsc_o_unsucc_a_int_circ_type(c 004096) + msc_controlled_out_h o(c 004102) +     + ho_unsucc_a_int_circ_type(c 004098))    7.NCCR_QC_TRIG_NO_GOOD_NEIG(c 072185) + b.PCCO_TO_GPRS_MS_DUE_PWR_BDGT(c 095002) where + a.PCCO_SENT_DUE_QUAL_CTRL(c 095006) 7. que_10 sum(ave_q_tim_call_att(c 001020)) que_10 = sum(queue_denom2(c 001021)) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 48(53) .17.sum(msc_o_not_allwd(c 004037) + bsc_o_not_ allwd(c 004038) + cell_not_allwd(c 004036))     / * wrong Aif circuit type * /   .PCCO_TO_EGPRS_MS_DUE_PWR_BDGT(c 095003) + a. hfr_68 Sum(bsc_o_drop_calls(c 004084) + msc_o_call_drop_ho(c 004107) + cell_drop_calls(c 004085)) hfr_ 68 = 100 ⋅  / * all HO attempts * /     sum(msc_o_tch_tch_at(c 004052) + msc_o_sdcch_tch_at(c 004053) + msc_o_sdcch_at(004054)   + bsc_o_tch_tch_at(c 004067) + bsc_o_sdcch_tch_at(c 004068) + bsc_o_sdcch_at(c 004069)     + cell_tch_tch_at(c 004076) + cell_sdcch_tch_at(c 004077) + cell_sdcch_at(c 004078))   / * handovers failing due to blocking * /     .19.PCCO_SENT_DUE_SERV_ISNCCR (c095004) + a.NCCR_NOT_STARTED_DUE_AC(c 095015) + b.PCCO_SENT_DUE_COVERAGE_ISNCCR(c 095005) + a.

sdcch_assign(c 001007)) .sum(b.sdcch_loc_upd(c 003019) + b.succ_seiz_supplem_serv(c 003044) Counters from table(s): a = p_nbsc_traffic b = p_nbsc_res_access Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 49(53) .20.sdcch_call_re_est(c 003020) + imsi_detach_sdcch(c 003033) + b. rlc_57 Sum over MCS .21.succ_seiz_term(c 003012) ) + b.9(DL_RLC_Blocks_In_Ack_Mode(c 079000)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_coding_scheme 7. sd_1b sd_1b = sum(a.succ_seiz_orig(c 003013) + b. Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_traffic 7.sdcch_emerg_call(c 003021) + b.n(DL_RLC_Blocks_In_Ack_Mode(c 079000)) rlc_57 = 100 ⋅ Sum over MCS 1 .

22. trf_7b SDCCH used time trf_7b = 100 ⋅ = SDCCH resource time (SDCCH seizures) * (avg SDCCH seizure length) 100 ⋅ (avg total nbr of SDCCH) * (period duration in seconds) 7.succ_seiz_term(c 003012) ) + b. sdr_17 sum(a.24. trf_238 sum(ave_busy_gprs_ch_ul(c 072168)) trf_238 = (avg (ave_busy_gprs_ch_den(c072170) * count(distinct period_start_time)) ) 7. trf_239 sum(ave_busy_gprs_ch_dl(c 072169)) trf_239 = (avg (ave_busy_gprs_ch_den(c 072170)) * count(distinct period_start_time)) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 50(53) . 7. tbf_63 UL_TBF_REL_DUE_TO_FLUSH(c 072058) tbf_63 = 60 ⋅100 ⋅ AVE_DUR_UL_TBF_SUM(c 072003) 7.succ_seiz_orig(c 003013) + b.sdcch_radio_fail(c001003) + a.23.sdcch_loc_upd(c 003019) + b.sdcch_call_re_est(c 003020) + imsi_detach_sdcch(c 003033) + + SUCCESS SEIZURE FOR HO(c001006) 7.sdcch_rf_old_ho(c001004) + a.sdcch_user_act(c001037) ) sdr_17 = sum(b.25.26.sdcch_emerg_call(c 003021) + b.

trf_250a (trf_162g + trf_208c) trf_250a = 100 ⋅ trf_239 trf_162g is a Benchmark KPI.28. see /4/ trf_208c is a Benchmark KPI. see /4/ trf_205d is a Benchmark KPI. 7. trf_249a (trf_161i + trf_205d) trf_249a = 100 ⋅ trf_238 trf_161i is a Benchmark KPI.29. see /4/ Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 51(53) . see /4/ 7. trf_248a sum(ave_tch_busy_full(c 002046_1) + ave_tch_busy_half(c 002048_1)) trf_248 = 100 ⋅ sum(ave_avail_tch_timeslot_c(c 002059) + ave_non_avail_tch_timeslot(c 002069)) Counters from table(s): p_nbsc_res_avail 7.27.

6 of (yy) + sum over MCS11..9 of (yy)/2    avg(period_duration * 60) * count( distinct period_start_time) * 50 trf_249b = trf_238 where yy = b. trf_536 numerator( trf _ 236 ) + numerator( trf ( 235 _ b ) trf_536 = deno min ator( trf _ 236 ) + deno min ator( trf ( 235 _ b ) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 52(53) .retra_data_blocks_ul_cs1(72173) + a.retrans_rlc_data_blocks_ul(c79008) Counters from table(s): a = p_nbsc_packet_control_unit b = p_nbsc_coding_scheme 7.12 of (yy)     + sum over MCS7.rlc_data_blocks_ul_cs2(c72064)     + a. trf_250b  a.31.. 7..retra_data_blocks_dl_cs2(c72069) +   sum over MCS1..12 of (yy)     + sum over MCS7.dl_rlc_blocks_in_ack_mode(c79000) + b.rlc_data_blocks_ul_cs1(c72062) + a..rlc_data_blocks_dl_cs1(c72063) + a.9 of (yy)/2    avg(period_duration * 60) * count( distinct period_start_time) * 50 trf_249b = trf_239 where yy = b.6 of (yy) + sum over MCS11.32.retra_data_blocks_ul_cs2 (72174) +   sum over MCS1.ul_rlc_blocks_in_ack_mode(c79002) + b.retrans_rlc_data_blocks_dl(c79009) / Counters from table(s): a = p_nbsc_packet_control_unit b = p_nbsc_coding_scheme 7.retra_data_blocks_dl_cs1(c72068) + a.. trf_249b  a.30.rlc_data_blocks_dl_cs2(c72065)     + a.

7. trf_534 numerator( trf _ 234 ) + numerator( trf ( 233 _ c ) trf_534 = deno min ator( trf _ 234 ) + deno min ator( trf ( 233 _ c ) 8.33. References /1/ GEMINI Master SFS /2/ GEMINI System Performance Specification /3/ PMO Analysis BSxx@BSC3i.8.inside.KPIs /5/ NOP Network Operational Portal Repository for complete set of BSS product KPI formulas are defined in NOP (e.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/Open/404864766 (CuDo) Internal document KPI differences guideline for Gemini implementation 53(53) .2008: Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation /4/ BSS14 KPI customer document Description of top level KPIs. for BSS14).inside. RRM. Adaptation of C/U-plane /8/ GEMINI SFS.g. Jörg Huth 19.nokiasiemensnetworks. BSC impacts /9/ GEMINI Main Requirement List (feature list) /10/ BR10 PM Counter Manual https://sharenet- ims. subscription for read access is granted by Juhani Neva. LAPD. also called BM – Benchmark .com/Overview/408627215 (CuDo homepage) /7/ GEMINI SFS. COO OBS /6/ KPI Requirement Spec BR10: https://sharenet- ims.