1

Introduced Intelligence: Using Software Abstraction to

Construct a Central Control Architecture for 5th Generation
Mobile Networks
Marko Ljubicic, Student in Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah

Abstract—Proposed 5th generation mobile networks aim at

a much higher throughput capacity over current standards.
One important area of throughput management is efficient
radio access and allocation of spectrum to mobile network end
systems. However, present research is scattered, adopting various
approaches to radio access or spectrum usage that remain to be
integrated into a single consistent system. This paper synthesizes
existing research in order to direct the way to a possible general
solution to the problem of efficient spectrum management for
5th generation radio access networks (RANs). The proposed
approach involves a centralized abstraction plane that provides
dynamic radio access and spectrum allocation over a hetero-
geneous network (HetNet) architecture. A unified architecture
would facilitate standardization efforts and deployment of 5G
networks.

Index Terms—5th generation (5G) mobile networks, dynamic

spectrum allocation, heterogeneous network (HetNet), radio ac-
cess network (RAN), Radio Access Technology (RAT), radio spec-
trum management, software-defined networking (SDN), spectrum
sharing

I. I NTRODUCTION
Mobile data traffic is expected to grow exponentially in
the coming years [1][2][3]. To meet this coming demand,
broadly agreed upon design targets for 5th generation (5G)
mobile networks are ambitious, with proposed peak data rates,
network capacity, energy efficiency, and latency design goals
being orders of magnitude greater than current-generation
capabilities [4][5].
Fig. 1: Some pieces of the Internet. It is a network of networks.
One important research focus has been efficient manage-
Internet service providers (ISPs) are organizations that supply
ment of radio spectrum to maximize end system radio access
fundamental infrastructure needed to communicate over the
and frequency band utilization. While mobile broadband com-
Internet. Figure modified from [8].
munications spectrum has been allocated on an international
level and an overall 5G framework is in place [6][7], technolo-
gies underpinning future mobile radio access networks (RANs)
remain to be standardized. This reality continues to promote computer) networks, as evidenced by the hegemonic status of
research into finding a product-level agreement on a 5G radio the Internet. In a data network, communication is achieved
access infrastructure. by using computing devices to send digitized information
The purpose of all telecommunications networks is to estab- across physical transmission media using formal rules called
lish information exchange between two or more end systems, protocols. A ”nuts and bolts” view of the Internet is shown in
which are devices that sit on the edge of a network. These Fig. 1. Modern mobile (or cellular) networks are data networks
end systems allow end users to access a network. The most that connect to the Internet.
important telecommunications networks today are data (or If an analogy were to be drawn between a rudimentary
data network and the old game of tin can telephones, the end
This paper was submitted for review on Apr. 25, 2017. It is an independent systems would be the tin cans (using the computing power of
work with no sponsors or financial contributions. human users in this case), the transmission medium would be
M. Ljubicic is with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA (e-mail: the wire connecting them, and the protocol would be the set
marko.ljubicic@utah.edu). of rules governing the communication between the people at
 2

each end. In such a simple system, shown in Fig. 2 (a), only

one transmission medium is necessary, and only one protocol
suffices—proper etiquette might dictate that the two users greet
each other before initiating further communication, and then
take turns exchanging information.
A more sophisticated arrangement might feature a middle-
man between two users, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (b). When one
user wished to communicate something to the other, he would
first contact the middleman, who would relay the information
to the targeted user. An even more sophisticated configuration
might look like Fig. 2 (c), which involves multiple middlemen,
each directly connected to several users and to one or more
other middlemen. Sending users would contact their directly
connected middleman, specify a target user and message, and
hope that the message arrives at its destination in the correct
order and free from error—the middlemen in this scenario are
very perceptive and accurate, but few real networks make such
guarantees.
These middlemen would serve a very similar role to that of
packet switches in modern data networks, the most notable
examples of which are routers. Just like routers in data
networks, the middlemen of this enhanced version of tin
can telephones would need to coordinate messages between
multiple users and each other. As the network grew, so would
the burden on each middleman. As one might imagine, the
protocols required to enable efficient communication would
become quite complex, binding not only the phone users but
also the middlemen.
Real data networks are not limited to one transmission
medium. The use of wireless transmission via radio waves, in
particular, has become ubiquitous, from simple home networks Fig. 2: The old children’s game of tin can telephones repre-
to the global cellular network. Data networks are also not sents a type of communications network. (a) Much like in a
confined to one type of middleman or can-whisperer. There data network, a simple arrangement features two end systems
are various kinds of switching devices and many different (the cans and users) and a transmission medium (the wire). (b)
end systems that exist in any data network of appreciable A middleman, who is analogous to a router in a data network,
size. In wireless networks, end systems are called user equip- can sit between two end systems and relay messages on their
ment (UE), all of which incorporate a particular radio access behalf. (c) A more elaborate configuration features multiple
technology (RAT) indicating the type of wireless connection middlemen, who are connected to several end systems and
method used to access a core network (CN) like the Internet other middlemen.
[9].
All data networks, wired or wireless, possess a network
layer whose function is to relay information along a pre- assigned to a data plane and a control plane, respectively. In
determined path to achieve end-to-end communication. In the other words, the data plane is responsible for forwarding, while
can phones example, each routing middleman might have the control plane is responsible for routing. These planes are
multiple adjacent middlemen to choose from when deciding conceptually distinct, though their interoperability is essential
where to send a user’s message such that it eventually reaches for enabling communication over a data network.
its target, an example of which is shown in Fig. 3. These In traditional networking, both the data plane and the control
forwarding decisions must be made on two levels: 1) each plane operate within each individual router. Routing protocols
middleman must forward a message to the next middleman execute on each router and provide each with forwarding
in the chain, and 2) each middleman must forward in such instructions, which are sorted into forwarding tables. In the
a way that the message takes an efficient path across the deluxe version of can phones, this would mean that every
network. It wouldn’t be sensible to have every middleman middleman would carry a map of the network (or a circum-
relay messages at random in the hope that they eventually scribed section thereof), run some fancy algorithm on the
reach their destination. Instead, an efficient set of routing links specified in the map (the middlemen have a passion
protocols might be agreed upon beforehand. for computer science), and produce a neat table that binds
In the network layer of actual data networks, the tasks incoming links to outgoing links based on the destination of
of forwarding messages from one router to the next and an incoming message. This way, should a new message arrive,
determining a network-wide path for a message to traverse are a middleman would simply consult his table with the target

Fig. 3: If user A wanted to send a message to user E, he
would first communicate it to his middleman, M1. In this
scenario, M1 has two options for sending A’s message onward:
M2 or M3. The more efficient choice in this case would be
M3, who has a direct connection to E. Sending the message
to M2 first would needlessly delay its arrival. When M1
sends the message to M3 instead of M2, he is making a
forwarding decision. From a network-wide perspective, the
pre-determined relaying of messages that originate from A and
are destined for E along the link M1-M3 is a routing decision.
user as key, find the corresponding outgoing link, and send
the message out accordingly.
Such a system has several major drawbacks. For one,
each middleman must maintain an accurate representation of
the network at the same time (since new middlemen could
join, or old middlemen could leave), or else any resulting
forwarding tables would soon become inefficient. Two, it
might be extremely desirable to base forwarding decisions
on more than the targeted recipient of a message, but doing
so using any known routing algorithm would introduce an
intolerable degree of complexity into the routing process. As
committed as the middlemen are, they are not prepared for
such an undertaking, nor is their love of computer science so
ardent. Three, if the network were to diversify by incorporating
transmission media other than wires (perhaps flashlights or
bells), the middlemen associated with them would become
more specialized, and the task of managing these network
resources would become more difficult. Finally, the middlemen
must be quite clever to function effectively in such a system,
each one possessing an undergraduate degree in computer sci-
ence or a related field and endowed with impeccable attention
to detail. Naturally, this final point means that the value of each
middleman is high, and in the world of real data networks, high
value translates to large operational expenditures per packet
switch.
Suppose that instead of delegating routing responsibility to
each individual middleman, a group of computer engineering
students (who are naturally more gifted than their computer
science peers) decide to take matters into their own hands.
They establish a separate committee, which they astutely call
the Control Plane Committee (CPC), whose purpose is to
perform network routing on behalf of the middlemen. Being
a mischievous sort, the engineers demand that the middlemen
3
communicate with them in a simplified formal language other
than spoken English, and in return for their troubles, the
middlemen would be relieved of the burdensome tasks of
keeping maps and cross-referencing tables. The engineering
students use their elevated position at the head of the network,
with a bird’s-eye view of its operation, to formulate routing
decisions and relay them to all middlemen at once. They can
use just about any criteria they like to make their decisions, and
they can issue any instruction that the middlemen are capable
of following. Seeing the benefits of this new approach, the
middlemen acquiesce to the better judgment of the engineers.
The management approach taken by the aforementioned
engineering students is analogous to that taken by wired
data network administrators in recent years. The CPC in
these newly organized data networks takes the form of a
suite of control programs. The programs run on distributed
servers (i.e., multiple servers working as a single system)
that interface with various switching devices inside a network
(mainly routers) using specially designed protocols. For this
reason, the approach is called software defined networking
(SDN). Decoupling the control plane from individual routers
also reduces their maintenance cost. The advantages of SDN
over conventional networking methods in eliminating the
drawbacks described above have resulted in its rapid adoption.
Google’s integration of SDN techniques into its data center
backbone a few years ago marked a major milestone for the
technology [10].
Wireless networks stand to gain tremendously from SDN
integration. The drive toward 5G, with its demanding goals,
makes research into SDN-enabling technologies for mobile
networks an especially worthwhile endeavor. The technologies
examined in this paper seek to introduce programmable,
centralized control into mobile radio access networks (RANs),
which provide mobile devices with a bridge to the Internet.
Like wired networks, mobile RANs incorporate routers
into their infrastructure, but they also employ several distinct
packet switching devices. The most important of these is a base
station (BS). A BS is responsible for sending and receiving
wireless data to and from UE associated with it [8, ch. 7,
p. 522]. BSs wirelessly communicate with UE devices by
assigning them a particular frequency range from the available
radio spectrum. The process of connecting UE to a BS is
called radio access. Improvements in radio access focus on
increasing the number of UE devices that can associate with
a BS at any given time.
Current BSs operate at frequencies of less than 3 GHz
(wavelengths greater than ~10 cm). Spectral efficiency is the
rate at which information can be transmitted over a given
bandwidth of available radio spectrum. Higher frequencies (>3
GHz) grant more spectral efficiency, but they are much more
limited in transmission range. In order to enhance spectral
efficiency, 5G networks aim to implement more dynamic
means of allocating available frequency spectrum to con-
necting and already connected devices. This would require
assigning frequency slots to devices as they become available
in real time. Another possible spectral efficiency pursuit is the
sharing of licensed spectrum among multiple devices, which
would require the technical enforcement of some licensing
 4

policy in real time.

Traditional mobile network infrastructure consists of a CN,
an RAN, and UE, as depicted in Fig. 4, where most of the
fundamental wireless devices share the same technology and
configuration. 5G mobile networks will rely more heavily on
heterogeneous networks than their predecessors, including the
use of Wi-Fi to allow for more finely-grained, complementary
coverage [4][11]. A HetNet combines different radio technolo-
gies into one integrated system [12].
In recent years, there has been growing support for the
use of small cell HetNets, which implement small cell base
stations (SCBS) that serve as mobile access points for UE. Fig. 4: User equipment (not shown) connects directly to LTE
SCBSs interact with more traditional macro-cell base stations core through the RAN. Figure by [14].
(MCBSs), which provide wider coverage, to offer granularity
and enhanced capacity to a network. A HetNet can utilize
cells with the same or different underlying RAT. If an RAN is scalability, flexibility, quality of service (QoS), and quality of
comprised of devices with the same underlying RAT, then a experience (QoE). This is explored in §II. Second, it reviews
multi-tier approach is taken, where a hierarchy of cells govern recent research on licensed spectrum sharing, which has been
radio access; if it is comprised of a more diverse collection identified as an important 5G building block [13], and assesses
of wireless devices, then RAT-interfacing technologies are the feasibility of dynamically allocating spectrum to connect-
used to transmit signals from one BS to another. In both ing end systems using a licensed spectrum access concept.
cases, a cell-selection protocol is used to select between BSs Spectrum usage is examined in §III. Finally, it argues that these
with the greatest signal strength [4][12]. The relevance of technologies can be incorporated into a unified framework for
HetNets to 5G networks is illustrated in Fig. 5. All of these 5G radio access networks pending more research into effective
network components constitute physical radio resources, and interfacing methods in §IV.
their efficient management is a major concern for 5G.
The efficient use of spectrum for mobile networking pur- II. C ENTRALIZED R ADIO ACCESS C ONTROL P LANE
poses can be generally divided into two related categories:
The complexity of 5G RANs necessitates using efficient
radio access and spectrum usage. The goal is to maximize
management techniques. Important research has been un-
the number of end systems connecting to a mobile network
dertaken to find effective architectural solutions. Several
while saturating the available frequency band of the spectrum.
promising architectures have been proposed. These are spatial
Present research has focused on both aspects to improve next-
databases storing base station coverage geometries [1], Ra-
generation performance [4], but no integrated approach has
dioVisor [16], programmable radio access networks (PRANs)
been agreed upon by mobile operators, governmental bodies,
[17], and software-defined HetNets [15]. The common theme
and researchers.
among these research candidates is the use of software
This paper contributes to the 5G standardization process by
abstraction to provide an all-encompassing RAN interface
examining several promising 5G radio technologies. It exam-
available to end systems and the core network. Effectively,
ines the viability of using concepts from SDN, wherein various
this amounts to a virtualized control plane sitting between
network resources are administered by a central controller
the heterogeneous RAN and the CN and UE edges of the
composed of distributed servers, to effectively manage small-
mobile network. This approach has three key benefits: 1)
cell heterogeneous networks (HetNets) that employ dynamic
it allows for centralized control of the entire mobile RAN
spectrum allocation and sharing. This type of arrangement at
using software-defined controllers and cloud technologies, 2)
the radio access layer can serve as a comprehensive implemen-
tation strategy to meet the throughput and latency requirements
of 5G networks. It should be noted that radio access and
spectral efficiency are not sufficient to satisfy projected 5G
traffic [2][3][7][11]. This reality has motivated investigations
into the use of centimeter and millimeter waves (<10 cm) over
the currently used and highly congested sub 3 GHz spectrum,
but as it requires further regulatory deliberation, presents
numerous technical challenges, and is mostly unrelated to
RAN architectures, it is beyond the scope of this article.
This paper approaches the task of developing a 5G radio
access regime from two directions. First, it examines the
capability of centralized servers to process end system access
over HetNets. If an SDN architecture can support expected
5G traffic demand, then its deployment would bring the
additional benefits associated with SDN technologies, such as Fig. 5: The cellular evolution. Figure by [15].

Fig. 6: Example information service architecture. Figure by
[1].
it provides the illusion of uniformity by presenting the HetNet
as a homogeneous, abstract network, and 3) it encourages
optimization via network-wide self-organized control rather
than localized, node-specific relaying of end systems.
After examining the foregoing proposals in more detail,
this paper proposes that they are all compatible within a
single unified 5G radio access framework. These architectures
should not be viewed as competing systems but as parts of a
common architecture that serve to meet the RAN-side capacity
requirements of 5G. The same control layer abstraction can
integrate all of the logically distinct sub-architectures.
A. Distributed Spatial Databases
Wireless end systems listen for beacons in each frequency
band and then associate with nearby base stations according to
various suitability criteria. Increased traffic demand requires
increased numbers of access points and cellular frequency
bands, which makes this access model inefficient in the long-
term. However, the proliferation of access points and cellular
bands provides the ability to locate an end system’s precise
geographic location [1]. Knowing the geographic location of
an end system with high precision is useful for scanning
nearby BSs to find suitable access points. BS and available
cellular band information can be aggregated and stored in
central spatial databases that are maintained by mobile net-
work operators (MNOs). An arrangement like this can be
considered an ”information service” (IS) architecture, where
essential network information is provided to end systems in
what is essentially a client-server model [1].
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the IS architecture works by aggre-
gating network information across multiple base stations into a
distributed network of servers that functions as a single logical
spatial database. End system queries about network state are
relayed to this database, which consists of root-level MNO
servers at the highest level, regional servers in the middle,
and possibly more localized servers at the bottom. Simulations
using MySQL and PostgreSQL show that a single central
database can handle millions of queries per hour and provide
nationwide information service [1]. This level of scalability
makes it well-suited as a 5G radio access architecture.
B. RadioVisor: Flexible Sharing of Radio Access Networks
The explosive growth in both the volume and diversity
of mobile network traffic has pressured wireless networks
5
Fig. 7: RadioVisor represents the radio access network as a 3D
resource grid of time, space (by location of radio element), and
frequency. It slices this grid using matrix algebra techniques.
Figure by [16].
to cope by deploying cell sites more densely. However, this
imposes high costs not only in terms of capital and operational
expenditures, but also in terms of increasingly chaotic station
placement and inter-cell interference. SoftRAN, a software-
based solution to this problem, proposes that all base stations
deployed in a geographical area should be abstracted as a
virtual big-base station which is made up of radio elements
(the individual physical base stations) [18]. A logically cen-
tralized control plane manages all handovers (transferring
communication with a wireless device from one cell site to
another) and interference. SoftRAN abstracts the available
radio resources as a 3D resource grid of space, time, and
frequency slots and programs them through a centralized radio
access control plane [16][18].
RadioVisor has been proposed as an extension to SoftRAN.
It functions as a slicing plane to enable sharing of network re-
sources [16]. Instead of leaving the management of the abstract
radio plane to a single centralized controller, which limits
sharing of network resources, RadioVisor divides 3D resource
grid among virtual operators by introducing a slice manager
and multiple independent controllers (one for each operator).
This allows for much more dynamic resource allocation [16].
C. Programmable Radio Access Networks (PRANs)
Current Long Term Evolution (LTE) RANs consist of a
collection of largely independent base stations [17]. LTE is
a widely deployed 4G wireless broadband technology [19].
It is an RAN technology, and similar to the protocol stack of
wired computer networks (and wireless LANs), it is composed
of layers with separate (logical) responsibilities. The top
two layers of the LTE RAN, which are essentially TCP/IP,
are programmable using modern software and cloud-based
 6

techniques, but the bottom two layers (L1/L2), which are

analogous to the physical and data-link layers of wired net-
works, are not. Current LTE RAN also suffers from capacity
utilization issues and insufficient radio resource coordination
[17]. Since LTE will continue to remain operable for many
years to come, it is imperative to harness it effectively in a 5G
environment. To overcome such shortcomings, a centralized
architecture known as programmable RAN (PRAN) has been
proposed [17].
The PRAN architecture divides a radio access network into
four planes: a radio plane, a data plane, a control plane,
and a management plane [17]. The radio plane isolates radio
resources among mobile operators and allows them to flexibly
process incoming and outgoing traffic at their own L1/L2
layers within the data plane. In essence, the radio plane
prepares packets for the data plane. PRAN uses the 3D slicing Fig. 8: Structure of the PRAN architecture. Figure by [17].
technique presented in RadioVisor to partition radio resources.
The data plane forwards incoming traffic from one node
to another. PRAN does this by abstracting the data plane as a
directed graph of decision blocks and processing blocks. Using
various meta data, it makes optimal forwarding decisions. The
control plane configures the data plane and directs each data
stream through an available data path according to the network
conditions or operator policy (similar to how it functions for
the network layer of the Internet protocol). Finally, the man-
agement plane assigns computational resources to the control
plane and data plane [17]. An overview of the architecture is
shown in Fig. 8.
Experiments on base station traces from a national cellular
operator using OpenAirInterface, an open-source LTE network
interfacing platform running on PCs, have shown that PRAN
can process BS information using a reasonable number of cen-
tral cores, configure the control plane, and dynamically pool Fig. 9: Dynamic resource allocation using a model of a PRAN
radio resources [17]. Though preliminary, these experiments controller. Figure by [17].
demonstrate that PRAN is a feasible radio access model.
Fig. 9 shows the results of allocating processing resources
to a single base station using a PRAN scheduler prototype. managed by a central controller. The advantages of such an
The BS was serving multiple UE devices at once. The goal architecture are direct programmability of the entire network,
was to process enough LTE subframes (a subdivision of a agile responsiveness to network conditions, central manage-
radio network data unit) under a specified deadline. Initially, ment, and vendor-neutral standardization. It is desirable to
the BS was sending data to 4 UE devices and managed to structure heterogeneous mobile RANs in a similar manner.
complete all transactions within the time constraint. After one Fortunately, it is theoretically possible to leverage the poten-
frame (10 ms), two additional UE devices joined. This resulted tial benefits of SDN by virtualizing RAN functionality [15].
in a missed deadline. The scheduler assigned an additional This can be done by thinking of the various elements in an
processing core to the BS, and the processing time fell below RAN as component clusters designed to maximize cellular
the deadline [17]. This experiment has confirmed that dynamic coverage. Given the presence of powerful macro-cell base
resource allocation using PRAN is feasible. stations, which will continue to represent the backbone of the
5G HetNet [7], to effectively pool network information into
a baseband processing unit (BBU) and a central control unit
D. Software-Defined RAN (SDRAN) (CCU), it is possible to develop a ”context-aware” network
Software-defined networking (SDN) technology attempts that can provide reliable information services to end systems
to apply the virtualization and abstraction methods used in from a centralized location.
data centers to computer networks (such as those that use In simplest terms, the model functions by channeling net-
IP). This is done by decoupling the traditional control plane, work information into the CCU via a macrocell while storing
which determines the path that any particular data packet will frequency information in the BBU (which uses backhauls to
take across the network, from the data plane, which forwards control remote radio head (RRH) base stations). The CCU
packets from one network ”node” (access or relay point) to processes incoming information and uses it to generate new
another [20]. Essentially, it allows the entire network to be network configurations, and these configurations are then re-

transmitted to the network on the macrocell’s carrier fre-
quency. Fig. 10 shows a broad view of the SDRAN.
III. S PECTRAL E FFICIENCY
Radio access concerns itself with efficient end system
access to cellular bands over a wireless network, but an-
other important area of interest for 5G RAN performance
is spectral efficiency: the amount of data bandwidth that a
specific technology can extract from a certain amount of radio
spectrum [21]. While traffic flow across the mobile spectrum
is vast, there is, at any moment in time, a large amount of
idle bandwidth; there is also allocated spectrum that remains
available but unused for various reasons. To improve overall
spectrum usage, spectrum sharing has been identified as a
building block for 5G networks.
Spectrum sharing refers to a situation where two or more
systems are operating in the same frequency band [22]. The
mobile spectrum can be divided into a licensed and an un-
licensed category, with sharing approaches directed at one or
the other, as shown in Fig. 11. The expected capacity needs of
5G have led to considerations of introducing spectrum sharing
between mobile network operators. Licensed spectrum sharing
calls for a novel architectural solution that would respect the
rights of licensees while ensuring quality of service. The
goal is to dynamically allocate spectrum to licensed users
as it becomes available while protecting established license
agreements.
A. Licensed Spectrum Access (LSA) Concept
A new shared spectrum concept called Licensed Shared
Access has received considerable attention in European regu-
lation and standardization. According to the European Com-
mission, LSA is ”a regulatory approach aiming to facilitate
the introduction of radio communication systems operated by
a limited number of licensees under an individual licensing
regime in a frequency band already assigned or expected
to be assigned to one or more incumbent users. Under the
Licensed Shared Access (LSA) approach, the additional users
are authorised to use the spectrum (or part of the spectrum)
in accordance with sharing rules included in their rights of
use of spectrum, thereby allowing all the authorized users,
including incumbents, to provide a certain QoS” [22][23]. This
is a regulatory framework that demands a technical solution.
LSA is an extension of Authorised Shared Access (ASA)
to radio communications systems in general, whereas ASA is
solely associated with mobile broadband. At its basic level, the
system is intended to license out allocated but unused spectrum
to new users, respect incumbent users (if a tiered licensing
system were implemented, for example, users with higher
authorized priority should gain access over those with lower
status), and provide a satisfactory QoS. Apart from regulatory
considerations, a technical solution would have to maintain up-
to-date records of relevant shared spectrum information, such
as license-holders, incumbents, available frequency bands, and
policies associated with each band, as well as control access
to the shared spectrum. The concept can be implemented by
introducing two new building blocks on top of the existing
7
cellular architecture: an LSA/ASA controller and an LSA/ASA
repository [22].
The LSA/ASA repository is a database that stores the
necessary shared spectrum information [22]. It also acts as an
interface between an incumbent spectrum user, who is using
the spectrum based on license-specific policies, a regulator,
who defines the rules, conditions, and licensing-terms of the
sharing framework, and the controller. Based on the informa-
tion it collects, the repository defines protected areas according
to the underlying regulatory requirements. These protected
areas are exclusion zones where the LSA/ASA users are not
allowed to use the given LSA/ASA band [22].
The LSA/ASA controller provides an MNO a means to
obtain information about available spectrum bands and to
access the spectrum [22]. The controller requests available
frequencies from the repository for a specific location. For
efficient management of the MNOs network and spectrum
resources according to demand, the controller receives all
the needed network related information from its network
management functionality (OAM). This information includes
carrier load levels, sector and site capabilities, information on
mobility, etc.
The repository and controller work together to collect
spectrum usage information, distribute this information to
stakeholders, and control access to licensed frequency bands
based on predetermined policy agreements. A live trial of
the LSA/ASA concept was tested successfully on a 2.3 GHz
band with existing network equipment, demonstrating that
dynamic availability of the LSA/ASA band can be handled
with a minimal number of additional components, namely the
repository and controller [22].
IV. T OWARD A U NIFIED 5G R ADIO ACCESS
A RCHITECTURE
The preceding analysis has reviewed architectures that have
been proposed as independent systems, but these architectures
are better viewed as complementary aspects of the 5G mobile
network. One key takeaway is that they all attempt to represent
a heterogeneous network, one composed of sundry wireless
devices with different underlying radio access technologies, at
an abstraction-layer high enough to centrally regulate, using
recent innovations from cloud computing and software-defined
networking.
The first step to establishing a cohesive 5th generation
radio access network is to decouple the control from the
data plane, as RadioVisor, PRAN, and SDRAN attempt to
do, by assigning responsibility to one or more centralized
controllers. The second step is to virtualize network functions
by writing them in software, as PRAN does, using RadioVisor
to manage physical radio resources. The third step requires
the introduction of an effective software-based management
system, as SDRAN has done with its centralized control unit
at the edge of the network. These technologies provide a
comprehensive foundation for a heterogeneous RAN that can
be managed as an abstract single system. On top of this system,
the distributed spatial database model and LSA/ASA concept
can provide a far more flexible base station information service
and spectrum sharing environment, respectively.

Fig. 10: Illustration of the software-defined radio access network (SDRAN). Figure by [15].
Fig. 11: Spectrum sharing approaches. Figure by [22].
RadioVisor, PRAN, and SDRAN are complementary and
can function within the same system. PRAN incorporates
RadioVisor’s resource slicing technique in its radio plane
to distribute radio resources among its controllers. SDRAN
can use the programmatic capability offered by PRAN to
control a radio network more effectively. A system like this
has the additional benefit of being especially suited for new
developments in SDN, network function virtualization (NVF),
8
and cloud-based mobile edge computing (MEC), which offer
novel capabilities to both traditional and emerging networks
and are expected to play an important role in 5G networks
[24].
When everything is put together, a coherent SDRAN archi-
tecture emerges, as shown in Fig. 13. SDN control servers
run the programs that govern the network on top of a PRAN
structure, the bottom layer of which is governed by Radio-
Visor. IS servers connect to the PRAN control plane to offer
rapid network information to connecting wireless devices. The
LSA controller interfaces with the SDN control applications
to enforce a licensing policy across the network. The edges in
Fig. 13 represent software interfaces, with the arrows showing
communication flow between the different elements.
Current research on 5th generation RANs is limited in that
it does not attempt to define a standard interface between
proposed successor technologies. With final standardization of
key 5G specifications estimated to be only a few years away
[25], it is time to undertake such highly consequential research.
V. C ONCLUSION
The expected growth of mobile network communication has
been the driving force behind continued efforts to regulate,
standardize, and technically define 5th generation mobile
networks. The 5G RAN will encompass a heterogeneous net-
work of fundamentally different but interoperable radio access

Fig. 12: Key stakeholders and architecture for LSA/ASA.
Figure by [22].
Fig. 13: A centrally controlled RAN architecture based on the
technologies examined in this paper.
technologies. Much research has been devoted to improving
the radio access and spectral efficiency of existing radio access
networks. However, less attention has been paid to synthesiz-
ing existing research for the purposes of establishing a unified
5G RAN architecture. After examining innovations in both
radio access and spectral efficiency, it is possible to discern
an emergent radio access infrastructure capable of meeting
the RAN efficiency standards of 5G. Although a coherent
picture of the 5G RAN is beginning to develop, more research
is needed into the challenges underlying each of the sub-
architectures as well as the interfacing technology required to
integrate them under a single service model. The tremendous
complexity of 5G networks will be much more tractable
9
with the use of software and cloud management techniques,
but insufficient attention has been given to finding a holistic
solution based on currently available research results. Previous
research has addressed the shortcomings and challenges of
individual 5th generation radio access technologies, but future
research should focus more on consolidation of proposed
technologies with the aim of assimilating novel methods into
a coherent next-generation radio access architecture.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Piri and H. Schulzrinne, “Scaling network information services to
support HetNets and dynamic spectrum access,” IEEE J. Commun.
Netw., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 202–208, Apr. 2014.
[2] ITU-R, “Assessment of the global mobile broadband deployments and
forecasts for International Mobile Telecommunications,” Radiocommu-
nication Sector of ITU, Rep. ITU-R M.2243, 2011.
[3] Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic
forecast update, 2016-2021,” Cisco, White Paper, 2017.
[4] J. Rodriguez, Future of 5G Mobile Networks, 1st ed. Wiley, 2015.
[5] J. Andrews et al., “What Will 5G Be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, May 2014.
[6] ITU, “World Radiocommunication Conference allocates spectrum for
future innovation,” WRC-15 Press Release, 2015.
[7] Ericsson, “5G Radio Access,” Ericsson, White Paper, Uen 284 23-3204
Rev C, 2016.
[8] J. Kurose and K. Ross, “Computer Networks and the Internet,” in
Computer Networks: A Top Down Approach, 7th ed. Hoboken, New
Jersey, USA: Pearson, 2017, ch. 1, p. 3.
[9] (2017, Feb.) RAT: Radio Access Technology. Technology Training Ltd.
[Online]. Available: http://technology-training.co.uk/rat.php
[10] B. Koley, “Software Defined Networking at Scale,” Google Technical
Infrastructure, BTE, 2014.
[11] M. Agiwal et al., “Next Generation 5G Wireless Networks: A Com-
prehensive Survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
1617–1655, Third Quart. 2016.
[12] B. Rong et al., 5G Heterogeneous Networks, 1st ed. Springer, 2016.
[13] M. Fitch et al., “A white paper on spectrum sharing,” European
Commission, Radio Access and Spectrum (RAS) White Paper, 2012.
[14] I. Grigorik, “Mobile Networks,” in High Performance Browser Network-
ing, 1st ed. Sebastopol: O’Reilly, 2013, ch. 7, p. 110.
[15] S. Sun et al., “Heterogeneous Network: An Evolutionary Path to 5G,”
in Proc. 2015 21st APCC. IEEE, Oct. 2015, pp. 174–178.
[16] A. Gudipati et al., “RadioVisor: A Slicing Plane for Radio Access
Networks,” in Proc. 3rd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop Hot Topics Softw.
Def. Netw. - HotDSN. ACM, Aug. 2014, pp. 237–238.
[17] W. Wu et al., “PRAN: Programmable Radio Access Networks,” in Proc.
13th ACM Workshop Hot Topics Netw. - HotNets-XIII. ACM, Oct. 2014,
pp. 6–13.
[18] A. Gudipati et al., “SoftRAN: Software Defined Radio Access Network,”
in Proc. 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop Hot Topics Softw. Def. Netw.
- HotDSN. ACM, Aug. 2013, pp. 25–30.
[19] M. Rouse. (2017, Feb.) Long Term Evo-
lution (LTE). TechTarget. [Online]. Available:
http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/Long-Term-
Evolution-LTE
[20] E. Haleplidis et al., “Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and
Architecture Terminology,” IETF, RFC 7426, Jan. 2015.
[21] P. Rysavy, “Challenges and Considerations in Defining Spectrum Effi-
ciency,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 386–392, Mar. 2014.
[22] M. Palola et al., “Live field trial of Licensed Shared Access (LSA)
concept using LTE network in 2.3 GHz band,” in Int. Symp. Dynamic
Spect. Access Netw. (DYSPAN). IEEE, Apr. 2014, pp. 38–47.
[23] “RSPG Opinion on Licensed Shared Access,” European Commission,
Radio Spectrum Policy Group, RSPG13-538, Nov. 2013.
[24] T. chen et al., “Towards Software Defined 5G Radio Access Networks,”
in IEEE Softw. Def. Netw. Newslett. IEEE, Mar. 2016.
[25] J. Gozalvez, “Tentative 3GPP Timeline for 5G [Mobile Radio],” IEEE
Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 12–18, Sept. 2015.
 10

Marko Ljubicic is a student in the Department of

Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Utah. He is currently pursuing a B.S. in
computer engineering at the senior level. His focus
of study is computer networked systems.