Application Note

5G Fronthaul
Handbook
 Table of Contents

Fronthaul Evolution: The Beginning

5G technology is touted as an innovation platform that will enhance our connected world. To deliver on this
promise, 5G will demand the network supporting it to be as flexible as the services running on it. The following
high-level 5G uses cases are well understood and documented by the wireless industry:
A guide to understanding the impact of 5G on transport networks and key test considerations
y Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) providing greater data-bandwidth services with peak data rates of 10
for ensuring reliable performance and high quality of service
Gbps and beyond. This data rate will enable new use cases such as augmented reality/virtual reality or ultra-high
density (UltraHD) applications.

y Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC) providing ultra-reliable capabilities with availabilities
in the range of 99.9999%, and extremely low latency features in millisecond range. Vehicle-to-vehicle
communication over 5G networks is one prominent use case for this category.
Table of Contents
Fronthaul Evolution: The Beginning...................................................................................3 y Massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) supporting extremely large numbers of devices in the range of
hundreds of thousands per square kilometer. Essential for this application class are battery lives up to ten years.
Network Evolution: The Key Drivers..................................................................................4
Centralized vs. Distributed BBU functions......................................................................5
eCPRI................................................................................................................................................10
Testing the Transport Network for 5G..............................................................................13
Peak Data User Experienced
y Fronthaul and Midhaul Network Test........................................................................13
Rate Data Rate
y Synchronization Test.........................................................................................................13
y FTN Test..................................................................................................................................15 eMBB
y 5G Fronthaul RU Connectivity and Delay Test......................................................16
Enhanced
Importance
y GPS Test (GPS signal/satellite coverage test).........................................................18 Mobile High
Broadband
y PTP Test (PTP timing error test)...................................................................................18
y Ethernet Test........................................................................................................................19 Medium Spectrum
Area Efficiency
y Virtual Network Performance Test..............................................................................20
Traffic Low
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................21 Capacity

Network
Energy Mobility
Efficiency

URLLC

mMTC Ultra-Reliable
Low Latency
Massive Machine Communications
Type Communications

Connection density Latency

Figure 1. Importance of key capabilities in different usage scenarios (from ITU IMT Vision)

2 5G Fronthaul Handbook 3 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

The big challenge is how to support these use cases on the same network. Much of the trade buzz to date has Centralized vs. Distributed BBU functions
been centered on 5G-NR (new radio), virtualized core, and mm-Wave spectrum. Receiving far less attention, but
Centralization enables resource pooling which optimizes resource utilization. Furthermore, the architecture provides
equally important as the new radio interface, is the evolution of the transport network connecting 5G nodes
some key functions for advanced LTE technology. The ability to coordinate multiple radios from one location is a
that enable the key 5G use cases –simultaneously. In the 2019 Heavy Reading survey Operator Strategies for 5G
key enabler for implementing features such as coordinated multipoint (CoMP), which helps increase user bandwidth
Transport, Heavy Reading reported, “the industry has recognized that this transport infrastructure must be put in
by aggregating traffic sourced from multiple cells at the user terminal. All these advantages come with a massive
place before 5G applications can be rolled out in volume”.
disadvantage for emerging 5G services: inefficient bandwidth. CPRI’s stringent delay requirement is well-suited for
centralization. However, it creates challenges in terms of bandwidth and node flexibility. CPRI provides a dedicated
Network Evolution: The Key Drivers transport protocol specifically designed to transport radio waveforms between the RRU and BBU. CPRI frames
We have come a long way from the days of T1 and E1 circuits. Before 4G, wireless industry backhaul transport expand with increased radio channel bandwidth and the number of antenna elements. CPRI is not very efficient in
requirements were relatively simple and were defined by cell site capacity requirements (number of voice users, statistical multiplexing and cannot scale to the demands of 5G, especially for massive MIMO and larger bandwidth
low throughput applications) and certain performance metrics (latency, jitter, availability). T1/E1 circuits met increments. The required bandwidth and antennas in a 5G scenario would push the CPRI bandwidth requirements
the need at the time yet, beginning with 4G, the bar was raised. Large data throughput (100’s Mbps) demand, above 100 Gbps (Table 1).
introduction of multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) technology, better coverage, energy efficiency, and
Antenna 10 MHz 20 MHz 100 MHz
radio coordination technologies imposed new and stringent requirements on the radio access network (RAN)
1 0.49 Gbps 0.98 Gbps 4.9 Gbps
infrastructure.
2 0.98 Gbps 1.96 Gbps 9.8 Gbps
In addition, as radios became more robust and mean-time-to-replace (MTTR) improved, vendors began offering 4 1.96 Gbps 3.92 Gbps 19.6 Gbps
remote radio solutions. Radios were moved close to the antenna to avoid the significant losses caused by long 64 31.36 Gbps 62.72 Gbps 313.6 Gbps
coaxial cables and connectors. This strategy not only helped with improved RF footprint, it also reduced the cooling
cost at the radio equipment enclosure located at or near the base of the tower. However, to support remote radio Table 1. CPRI Bandwidth as a function of bandwidth and antenna ports
units and remote radio heads (RRU/RRH), new digital interfaces were introduced. These connected the digital
equipment also, called baseband units, (BBU) to the RRUs through a physical fiber link. Today the most widely used
technology is based on the common public radio interface (CPRI) protocol. This introduced a new link in the RAN These bandwidth allocations would be extremely expensive for larger 5G network rollouts. Standard bodies
infrastructure called fronthaul, in contrast to the backhaul that connects the BBUs with the core mobile network. including 3GPP, IEEE, ITU-T and others have been working to:

1. Study different split options (as shown in figure 3) of the BBU functions and its implications

2. Identify optimal requirements for different applications and services (throughput, latency, jitter, etc.)
Fronthaul
Backhaul 3. Identify potential challenges and solutions for dividing the different BBU functions to meet the application
(Antenna to Central Office)
and network demands

4. Provide guidance for flexible fronthaul splits

Central Office Internet/Core Network Data Center
To develop an alternative solution necessitates an analysis of the key functional elements between a BBU and an
RRU. As per 3GPP BBU can be divided into eight main functional splits as shown in figure 3. In the case of 4G, RRUs
Remote retain the RF functions, while the other main functions are placed in the BBU. This functional distribution allows
Radio Head
(RRH) operators to centralize most of the functions at one location and have a basic lower cost radio at each end point
(option 8).
Distributed Unit BBU
BBU

Figure 2. Evolution of RAN

4 5G Fronthaul Handbook 5 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

To deliver on these requirements, next-generation RAN has evolved such that the functions performed by the BBU
BBU RRU are split into three parts:

1. Central Unit (CU)

DOWNLINK
PDCP High Low High Low High Low 2. Distributed Unit (DU)
RRC
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY

3. Remote Radio Unit (RRU).

Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Option
RF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
However, 3GPP considers a split base station architecture consisting of CU and DU only. The new BBU architecture
not only helps with the above-mentioned challenges, it also takes advantage of RAN virtualization allowing certain
UPLINK

High Low High Low High Low BBU functions to be located at the different physical locations, depending on the application type and the service
RRC PDCP
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY
provider network topology.

The two new interfaces created between the Core and the CU and the CU and DU generally are referred to as the
high layer split point (NGFI-II) and the low layer split point (NGFI-I) respectively. From an application standpoint,
CPRI for fixed wireless type applications a higher layer split (HLS) option is recommended (Figure 4). This option places
the real-time functions inside the radio unit and can also be considered as a distributed unit (DU)/radio unit (RU)
Network Data Link Physical functional element. This placement significantly reduces the bandwidth at the HLS interface. 3GPP recommends
Layer Layer Layer
option 2 for HLS. This interface is also known as the F1 interface (equivalent to NGFI-II). Beyond significant
reduction of the bandwidth, the delay budget is in the range of several milliseconds, much higher than CPRI
(fronthaul) interfaces. This budget allows the CU to be located tens of miles away from the DU/RU element.
Figure 3. Functional split options
This segment of the network is called midhaul as it sits between the fronthaul and the backhaul.

Beyond the key disadvantage of bandwidth inefficiency, CPRI also has a very limited delay budget. In practice, this
means that the distance between BBUs and RRUs will be very limited. The distance is determined by the delay
budget and the type of transport technology deployed in the fronthaul. Dark fiber is the simplest one allowing CU DU/RU
for maximum distance. Transport equipment that contains some processing elements reduces the delay budget,

DOWNLINK
sometimes substantially, as with Optical Transport Networking (OTN). As it is often the case, operators must look
at the individual use case and conduct a trade-off analysis to determine the best transport technology. Key inputs PDCP High Low High Low High Low
RRC
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY
in the analysis include the availability of fiber and equipment rooms, as well as the number and locations of radio
end-points. Following are the high-level requirements for the fronthaul that vendors and service providers are
Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Option
driving: RF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

a. Reduce bit rate (capacity usage) on the front haul, especially separating fronthaul usage from antenna port

UPLINK
High Low High Low High Low
capacity as in the case of CPRI. RRC PDCP
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY

b. Manage stringent latency requirements for uRLLC type application.

c. Optimize timing and jitter requirements for coordination features such as CoMP and carrier aggregation.
F1
d. Reduce overhead cost and deployment cost because fiber is an expensive resource to deploy.

Figure 4. Higher layer split (HLS) option

6 5G Fronthaul Handbook 7 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

Scheduling of available resources takes place in the MAC (Media Access Control) layer. The MAC scheduler must
execute a certain set of actions every Transmission Time Interval (TTI) which requires very low latency and
execution jitter. The MAC instructs the radio link control (RLC) about the size of packets it will receive thereby
assuring a specific quality of service (QoS) for each radio bearer. Per an NGMN study, moving the MAC layer to
the CU can potentially limit the performance of coordination functions. The Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) process and other
timing critical functions are part of lower MAC, therefore the split options from 1 to 5 as shown in the above figure
have relaxed latency requirements on the fronthaul link, where splits 6 to 8 have very strict fronthaul latency
requirements.
As reported in the Next Generation 5G Wireless Networks: A Comprehensive Survey, IEEE Communications Survey
Tutorials, (vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1617–1655, 2016) fronthaul bitrates for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) for each functional
split for a 20 MHz LTE carrier using two DL antennas and 64 Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), results are
shown in figure 6. The figure shows a full load of the entire carrier, which will always be in use for split option 8
and 7-1, but for splits 1 to 7-2 this is just the highest possible peak on the fronthaul link, as the bitrate will vary with
the user load.

Massive mobile broadband services that are expected to take advantage of advanced mobility applications that
require coordination of multiple radios will require a lower layer functional split option that leaves most of the
functional elements (Figure 5) in a centralized location coordinating the radios. Options 6 and 7 of the standards
180
are currently being considered for this use. Remember this functional split creating a front haul interface equivalent
160
to NGFI-I will reduce the downlink and uplink fronthaul bitrates but will have significantly stringent latency
requirements. This means the distance between the DU and RU will be limited. For this same use case, the CPRI 140

organization published the first eCPRI specification in 2017. 120

100

80

60

CU/DU RU 40

20
DOWNLINK

0
8 7.1 7.2 7.3 6 5 4 3 2 1
PDCP High Low High Low High Low
RRC
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY
Functional Split Options

Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Option DL UL

RF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UPLINK

High Low High Low High Low

RRC PDCP Figure 6. Fronthaul bitrates, as per 3GPP UL/DL for each functional split
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY

eCPRI
eCPRI eCPRI technology is based on a functional split in the LTE Physical Layer (PHY) component. The eCPRI specification
recommends that split option IU be used for uplink, and either IID or ID be deployed for downlink, which maps to
the 7.x split with respect to 3GPP as shown in figure 7. eCPRI connects the eCPRI Radio Equipment Control (eREC)
and the eCPRI Radio Equipment (eRE) via fronthaul transport network. The goal of eCPRI compared to CPRI, is to
decrease the data rate demands between the eREC and the eRE via a functional decomposition while limiting the
Figure 5. Lower layer split option
complexity of the eRE. In addition, eCPRI is designed to enable efficient and flexible radio data transmission over a
packet based fronthaul transport network like IP or Ethernet.

8 5G Fronthaul Handbook 9 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

Using Ethernet for transport is very practical because it is backwards compatible, allowing for commodity equipment,
enabling greater convergence of access networks, and enabling statistical multiplexing which will help lower the

MAC MAC
aggregate bit-rate requirements. Use of standard IP/Ethernet network switching/routing will also make functional
Option virtualization and overall network orchestration relatively easy.
6
PHY PHY
Coding De-coding The above options rely on a single-split configuration. There are also good reasons to have a double-split-option

Rate Rate
(Figure 8). For example, URLLC applications require extremely fast network responses. Vehicle to network (V2N)
matching de-matching applications need response times in the range of a few milliseconds from vehicle to vehicle. That does not leave
Option De-
Scrambling 7-3 (DL) scrambling much budget for the cellular network if the two vehicles communicate over two RUs. This use case is a good
ID (eCPRI)
De- example of cases that would benefit from a double-split design that separates the DU and CU. While the time
Modulation
modulation
critical functions in DU can be placed closely to the RU, and thereby help meet the low latency requirement, the
Layer Channel
mapping estimation/ non-time-critical functions can be placed farther away in a central location.
Option Equalization
7-2 & IDFT

Pre-coding
IID (eCPRI) IU (eCPRI)
RE mapping
Option RE CU DU RU
7-2a de-mapping

Option
Digital BF Digital BF

DOWNLINK
7-1

IFFT/CP Option FFT/CP High Low High Low High Low

addition 8 removal RRC PDCP
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY
E (CPRI) E (CPRI)
RF RF
D/A A/D Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Option
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RF
Analog BF Analog BF

UPLINK
High Low High Low High Low
RRC PDCP
RLC RLC MAC MAC PHY PHY

Figure 7. Functional split in PHY

F1 eCPRI

For eCPRI, three planes are necessary for interaction between the eREC and the eRE: 1) user plane, 2) sync plane,
and 3) control and management (C&M) plane. The eCPRI standard defines the user plane and refers to other
standards for the definition of the other planes. For example, an operator is free to choose precision timing Figure 8. Double split option
protocol (PTP) or global positioning system (GPS) for synchronization.
To summarize, splitting the BBU function is essential for 5G services because CPRI is not scalable for eMBB and
eCPRI also mentions packet-based technologies for the transport of the user plane. Both Ethernet (layer 2) and
massive MIMO, and it does not offer the flexibility required for MMTC and uRLLC applications. Moving some of
Ethernet/IP/UDP (layer 2/3/4) are possible. For the physical layer, eCPRI refers to Ethernet rates 10 Gbps to 100
the BBU functions to reduce the fronthaul bitrate (CPRI bit rate is proportional to the number of antenna to user
Gbps. The point of this discussion is not to rehash eCPRI, but to identify the difference between CPRI and eCPRI.
throughput) can impact the latency requirements for coordination features and real-time applications including
And further, where CPRI becomes a limited interface, eCPRI opens it up for 5G by reducing the throughput on the
uRLLC. By using NFV (network function virtualization) and flexible split options for different application types,
fronthaul and it uses a frame format that supports an Ethernet or Ethernet/IP/UDP frame transmission. The frame
a more optimal midhaul and fronthaul (also known as x-haul) can be implemented. This new x-haul architecture
includes an eCPRI header that follows layer 2 or layer 2/3/4 header and is followed by the eCPRI payload.
allows for scalable, packet-based transport technologies but the downside is operators now have to address timing

Synchronization plane is carried independently over any ethernet layer and is not restricted to specific protocol. and synchronization issues. However, those can be addressed using standards-based timing and synchronization

Global positioning system (GPS), precision time protocol (PTP), synchronous Ethernet, or something similar can be technologies such as GPS, PTP, synchronous Ethernet, or something similar. The bottom line is that 5G front haul

used for timing and synchronization. and midhaul networks will vary based on the applications offered, network topology, medium availability
(fiber, microwave, etc.), and service provider business case. There is no one size fits all.

10 5G Fronthaul Handbook 11 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

A. Bandwidth measurement/committed information rate

5G RAN
B. Delay and jitter

C. Packet or Frame Loss

D. RFC 2544 and Y.1564 Test

FH
SLAs for fronthaul networks will grow more stringent as higher capacity and ultra-low latency and reliability
FH services are deployed. We will see the network evolve from dark fiber to a wider WDM expansion which means
FH WDM testing will be needed. Some service providers are in the process of deploying NG-PON already as a future
CU
investment. We anticipate more frequent use of Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) for real-time communication
CU/DU CU/DU with hard, non-negotiable time boundaries for end-to-end transmission latencies, where devices in the network
DU Regional MTSO/MEC Backhaul
Midhaul need to have a common time reference and therefore, need to synchronize their clocks. This means in addition to
EPC/NGC the tests listed above, timing and synchronization tests will also be required.
DU
MH BH C-RAN
Synchronization Test
DU BH Aggregation
FH Network As discussed earlier, timing and synchronization play a vital role in the performance of a wireless network. In 5G
DU
networks, those requirements are magnified due to phase and timing demands brought by time division duplex
(TDD) and coordinated radio techniques. Previous mobile networks primarily required frequency synchronization to
DU BH FH
gNB align signals. Unfortunately, frequency sync alone will not be enough with 5G.

4G RAN Synchronization requirements are derived from several bodies, including the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP). 3GPP technical specifications 36.104/38.104 represent two key documents that describe base station
5G RAN
radio transmission and reception requirements. More specifically, section 6.5 (Transmit signal quality) lists several
requirements that are essential for synchronization network design including time alignment error (TAE). TAE is
defined as the largest timing difference between any two signals belonging to different antennas or transmitter
Fronthaul DU-RU Midhaul CU-DU Backhaul CU-Packet Core
groups. The requirements are categorized depending on the wireless use case (Table 2). These use cases are
• CPRI/eCPRI/ORAN • F1 Interface • S1 Interface
• Range <20kM • Range <80kM • Range <200kM assigned unique categories from A+ to A, B, and C. The use cases at the bottom of the table are being developed
• Latency micro seconds • Latency low milliseconds • Latency tens of milliseconds at this time and have not been assigned a category.
• N1, N2, and N3 for 5G
3GPP Feature RAN

Figure 9. X-haul evolution

LTE NR
MIMO or TX-diversity transmission Category A+ Category A+
Intra-band contiguous carrier aggregation Category A BS Type 1: Category B
Testing the Transport Network for 5G BS Type 2: Category A
Intra-band non-contiguous carrier aggregation Category B Category C
Fronthaul and Midhaul Network Test
Inter-band carrier aggregation Category B Category C
Whether service providers are deploying a new technology or launching a greenfield network, all components, TDD Category C Category C
connections, and the overall network integration needs to be tested. After ensuring all physical layer tests are Dual Connectivity Category C Category C
completed (fiber inspection and certification), it is important to run higher layer tests along with timing and COMP Not specified in 3GPP Not ready in 3GPP
sync to ensure the best return on investment. Failure to test can cause network launch delays, poor 5G system Supplementary Uplink Not applicable for LTE Not ready in 3GPP
performance, and excessive, unplanned capital expenditure. Ultimately, neglecting to test can negatively affect In-band Spectrum Sharing Not ready in 3GPP Not ready in 3GPP
the customer experience, cause end-user churn, and hurt the topline. Positioning Not specified in 3GPP Not ready in 3GPP
MBSFN Not specified in 3GPP Not ready in 3GPP
Service level agreements (SLAs) for midhaul networks will be very similar to backhaul, which means testing
requirements will be similar: Table 2. Timing Accuracy categories (eCPRI Transport Requirements)

12 5G Fronthaul Handbook 13 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

Category A+ demands the most stringent synchronization requirements (Table 3) while category C’s requirement
is in line with current LTE backhaul networks. The requirements are identified in terms of relative and absolute
Time Error (TE). The relative TE specifies the time error between any two RU (or eRE). Absolute TE is the time error
against a reference Primary Reference Time Clock (PRTC). In most cases the absolute TE requirements are in addition
to the one for respective relative TE requirements (categories A+, A, and B).
FTN Test
A fronthaul transport network node (FTN) is introduced to manage the ethernet access ring that can deliver a
converged fronthaul supporting legacy CPRI and 5G eCPRI as shown in Figure 11.

Category Time Error

A+ (relative) 20-32 ns
4G CPRI
A (relative) 60-70 ns CPRI
RRU 4G
B (relative) 100-200 ns RoE RoE
RRU
C (absolute) 1100 ns FTN FTN

Table 3: Time error requirements 5G

RU eCPRI
Fronthaul Bridged Network
Figure 10. shows synchronization network components and test applications with T-BERD/MTS-5800 used for
validating connectivity to PRTC/T-GM (Primary reference and grand master clock) and measuring time error within eCPRI
5G 5G
the network. RU FTN FTN eCPRI CU + DU

Figure 11. FTN Network architecture

PRTC T-GM O-RU

O-DU Fronthaul T-TSC

T-BC T-BC T-BC This resolves some topology challenges, but it is important to make sure that FTN networks do not create excessive
10/25GE 10/25GE
FTN FTN FTN delays and meet the delay and synchronization budgets for the access network. The following table highlights key
O-RU eCPRI transport requirements.
PRTC T-GM
T-TSC
O-DU
Cos Name Example Use One-way Maximum One-Way Packet
Packet delay Loss Ratio
5800 High User Plane 100 µs 10-7
/TEM
Medium User Plane (slow), 1 ms 10-7
C&M Plane (fast)
Low C&M Plane 100 ms 10-6

Figure 10. Synchronization test applications using T-BERD/MTS 5800 Table 4: Split E and splits ID, IID, IU requirements

Today multiple NEMs in the lab are using VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800-100G to validate FTN performance. T-BERD/MTS-
5800-100G can perform eCPRI tests and measure throughput, delay, and packet jitter. By using a T-BERD/MTS-5800
engineers can configure eCPRI message types according to eCPRI specification, measure bandwidth for each message
type, and measure round trip delay (RTD) with sub 5 ns accuracy. By performing FTN tests, engineers can validate the
delay and synchronization requirements for the FTN and can ensure it is within the designed network specifications.
In the future this test can also be used in the field to validate the fronthaul network performance.

14 5G Fronthaul Handbook 15 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

The VIAVI T-BERD/MTS can perform the following tests for 5G fronthaul networks:

Fronthaul

Fronthaul Backhaul CU/ Midhaul DU/ FTN WDM FTN RU

vCU vDU Fiber
Backhaul F1
Backhaul CU/ Midhaul DU/ FTN WDM FTN RU
vCU vDU Fiber eCPRI
Backhaul F1

eCPRI

Figure 13. 5G fronthaul RU connectivity and delay test

Figure 12. 5G fronthaul transport test use case

GPS Test (GPS signal/satellite coverage test)
It is important to check GPS signal stability and suitability for the GPS antenna location at the time of installation,
y Generate and analyze eCPRI signals (10/25GE)
and periodically after installation as conditions around the site may have changed. VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800 tests
y Verify proper QoS for eCPRI message types (Measure bandwidth/delay/jitter for each message type) GPS signals using an integrated GPS receiver and provides the following results:
y Generate/filter eCPRI subheaders
y Number of visible satellites
y One Way Delay Measurement
y Signal strengths
y RTD measurement < 5 ns accuracy
y CNO map spectrogram plots line of sight to satellites as they move around the orbit over time
y C&M, SNMP/UDP/TCP test

y Test PTP/SyncE/GPS for synchronization

y Emulate PTP Slave/master

RRH
y Measure Time Error, Wander, PDV, MTIE/TDEV

y GPS Signal Strengths, Trails

y Test Ethernet OAM (Loopback, LoC, Trace)

5G Fronthaul RU Connectivity and Delay Test

y Verify connectivity to an RU RIU
y Measure One Way Delay against an RU

y Verify PTP connectivity, and measure PTP Time Error T-BERD/MTS-5800

y Same tests can be done against a DU

Figure 14. GPS Test using VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800

16 5G Fronthaul Handbook 17 5G Fronthaul Handbook

 Table of Contents Table of Contents

Ethernet Test
As discussed, earlier midhaul, i.e. the link between the distributed unit and the centralized unit, have similar SLAs
as compared to backhaul. Therefore, requirements for validating the performance of the midhaul will be very
similar to validating the performance of the backhaul network. Verifying the correct configuration and high-
quality transport of data-plane and control-plane is extremely important. By implementing RFC 2544 and Y.1564
test methodologies to validate end-to-end configuration at either the Ethernet or IP level can ensure the key
performance objectives such as committed burst size (CBS), committed information rate (CIR), latency, packet jitter,
and frame loss are met.

Tests can be performed using solutions supporting RFC 2544 and Y.1564 test methodologies. Testing can be
done in a single-ended or dual-ended test topology. The latter requires two test units but can ensure proper
characterization of network in both directions and can detect potential asymmetries between the two directions.
One-way delay measurement can identify asymmetries caused by network equipment, components or fiber
lengths. With the help of VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800-100G service providers can perform the following tests:

y Throughput/one-way and loopback latency/frame loss/jitter

PTP Test (PTP timing error test) y RFC2544 testing

As discussed earlier, reliable wireless service depends upon reliable synchronization. For PTP, the PTP slave (RIU) y RY.1564 testing
must be able to connect to its assigned PTP grand-master and comply to PTP frequency profile network limits
such as floor packet percentile. Additionally, PTP time/phase profile, must conform to the time error network limits.
Using a VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800, which works as a PTP slave, an engineer can check connectivity to the PTP
grand-master and check whether timing error is within requirements by using a step-by-step guide.

RRH DU CU

PTP/SyncE
Figure 16. T-BERD/MTS-5800 used for RFC2544 Testing

Virtual Network Performance Test

T-BERD/MTS-5800
With network function virtualization (NFV), the network is moving away from a hardware-centric, proprietary
network infrastructure toward an open, standards-based, software model that is revolutionizing the way
networks will be designed, implemented and operated. In the 5G realm, we expect to see a larger deployment and
Figure 15. PTP Check using VIAVI T-BERD/MTS-5800 integration of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) servers and orchestration of virtual functions, this type of network
will also demand test and measurement solutions which are more software based rather than physical proprietary
hardware products, especially for higher layer testing. Using a VIAVI NITRO vNet Fusion solution, service providers
can combine software-based test agents with standards-based (RFC7594) data collection methodologies to quickly
and efficiently test wireless backhaul and midhaul.
18 5G Fronthaul Handbook 19 5G Fronthaul Handbook
 Control I/F
Data Reporting

External Data Analytics External Controller (e.g. SDN)

Data Exchange API Netconf/YANG Netconf/YANG Configuration and Setup

Streaming DB I/F of Test and PM
compliant architecture
LMAP RFC 7594

Real Time Data Collector Test and PM Controller

• Test / PM Results • Test / PM setup and control
• KPIs

vAgent vAgent

Server vCPE
L2/L3 Y.1564 Unmanaged
vCPE VIAVI Tester L3 TWAMP Light PM TWAMP
L3 TWAMP PM reflector

Figure 17. Fusion Test Architecture

When a new backhaul/midhaul service is introduced, engineers can quickly add virtual probes run layer 2-4 tests
and measure network performance and throughput and evaluates overall network quality.

Conclusion
As service providers continue the quest to offer new 5G services that require different levels of quality, they are
bound to evolve from a CPRI-based fronthaul approach to a more packet based-split architecture. This architecture
can meet their needs because it offers greater flexibility, but it also requires a different testing approach. Validating
latency, timing and sync and network availability at a scale calls for test solutions that are efficient and simple. With
the fully-integrated VIAVI portfolio of cloud-enabled instruments and systems, software automation, and services
for network testing, performance optimization, and service assurance, operators and their partners gain confidence
for smooth network and service roll-outs, sustainable network quality, and an excellent customer experience.

Contact Us +1 844 GO VIAVI © 2021 VIAVI Solutions Inc.

(+1 844 468 4284) Product specifications and descriptions in this
document are subject to change without notice.
To reach the VIAVI office nearest you, 5gfronthaul-an-xpf-nse-ae
visit viavisolutions.com/contact 30190975 901 0221

viavisolutions.com