See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261238989

Review of studies on end-to-end QoS in LTE networks

Conference Paper · October 2013

DOI: 10.1109/AEIT.2013.6666818

CITATIONS READS

22 5,207

2 authors, including:

Alessandro Vizzarri
University of Rome Tor Vergata
24 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

QoS-QoE estimation for 4G-5G wireless networks View project

Edge Cloud Computing in Telecommunications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alessandro Vizzarri on 13 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Review of Studies on
End-to-End QoS in LTE Networks
Sonia Forconi Alessandro Vizzarri
Department of Electronic Engineering Department of Electronic Engineering
University of Rome Tor Vergata University of Rome Tor Vergata
Rome, Italy Rome, Italy
sonia.forconi@uniroma2.it alessandro.vizzarri@uniroma2.it

Abstract — The study of the end-to-end QoS (Quality of

Service) features of wireless networks may give to mobile
operators ways to manage the network infrastructures from a
II. Architecture
trustworthy and robustness perspective, to optimize the network
usage and guarantee desired quality of services to end user. In A. LTE architecture
this paper a review of studies on end-to-end QoS in LTE LTE network is based on architecture called EPS (Evolved
networks is presented. The most important features of the LTE Packet Switched System) shown in Figure 1 [1].
(Long Term Evolution) 3GPP Standard are its network
architecture, its ability to support the end-to-end QoS and its EPS is composed by two main subsystems:
ability to differentiate the user services. The wireless standard
which has immediately preceded LTE is the WiMAX Standard. • Radio Access Network: Evolved UTRAN (E-UTRAN)
Such a standard is based on the same radio transmission system • Core Network: Evolved Packet Core (EPC)
(OFDM). Therefore in the first part of the paper we compare the
QoS aspects of the LTE and WiMAX. In the second part of the
paper we focus on QoS aspects in E-UTRAN (Evolved Universal
Terrestrial Radio Access Network) section of LTE networks. In
the third part of the paper we also analyze the QoS aspects of the
end-to-end LTE network: the E-UTRAN section and the EPC
(Evolved Packet Core) section.

Keywords: LTE, QoS, QCI,

Fig. 1. LTE architecture (Font: 3GPP)

I. Introduction
Radio mobile technology has become very important in
electronic market of the last years. Due to very large services
they can deliver to end user, handheld terminals, such as
mobile phones, notebook and pads, are now very popular in
our society. In fact we can use them for services like voice call
or internet connections, chat or messaging, activities in social
networks.
The 4th Mobile Generation, called LTE (Long Term
Evolution), promises to deliver these services with very high
performances, especially in terms of data rate: a speed of 300
Mbit/s per user is expected.
Since LTE is the first FULL IP Wireless Technology
standardized by 3GPP, it has a strong relationship with
applications based on data transfers such as internet
connections, downloads or FTP transfers, web browsing or
video streaming.
The main network elements of E-UTRAN are:
• UE: User Equipment
• eNB: evolved Node B
UE is terminal of end user, while eNB is Radio Base
Station of Mobile Network Operator (MNO) deputed to
deliver radio signals.
The main network elements of EPC are:
• MME: Mobility Management Entity
• HSS: Home Subscriber Systems
• S-GW: Serving PDN (Packet Data Network) Gateway
• P-GW: Proxy PDN (Packet Data Network) Gateway
• PCRF: Policy and Charging Rules Function
MME is network node deputed to manage end user’s attach
procedures, mobility, handover and traffic balance operations.
HSS verifies end user subscription, S-GW is transmission
node linking E-UTRAN and EPC, P-GW is transmission node
linking LTE Core Network (EPC) and other networks.
PCRF is network node able to define QoS (Quality of Service)
policies of a particular service requested by user, so its
presence is crucial for end to end QoS approach.
B. LTE QoS Key Factors
Mechanisms of QoS management allow the mobile operator to
enable the privileged treatment and priorities for certain users
by the service differentiation. Bearer [2] is a fundamental
element related to QoS in LTE Network.
Bearer is a virtual path that delivers IP packet flows from the
terminal (UE) to the PDN gateway (in Uplink) and viceversa
(in Downlink). Bearer can transports the IP data flows with the
same QoS requirement.
Bearer can be classified in the following types:
• GBR (Guaranteed Bit Rate): bearer for the transport
of the IP packet flows with high priority (e.g. VoIP
packets); it requires dedicated resources for the
duration of the transmission and high data rate, delay
and low error rates.
• Non-GBR (Non-Guaranteed Bit Rate): bearer cannot
guarantee the availability of the resources allocated
during the entire transmission, so it is established for
applications that do not require particularly high bit
rate.
• Default bearer: bearer established during the UE
attach procedure to the mobile network; it provides
basic connectivity and it is suitable for transport of
Best Effort traffic.
• Dedicated bearer: bearer established after the default
bearer if the IP packet requires specific QoS
parameters and therefore a specific QoS treatment
QoS in LTE is characterized by the following parameters:
• QCI (Quality of Service Class Identifier) is a scalar
used to manage functions (scheduling, queue
management), relating to the forwarding of packets
on a network. Each QCI is characterized by priority
level, packet delay budget and acceptable packet loss
rate. The set of standardized QCIs are shown in
Figure 2 [2]. Each bearer has an associated QCI
value.
Fig 2: QCI table (Font: 3GPP)
• ARP (Allocation Retention Priority): parameter used
for the management of priority in access procedures
in case of cell congestion. Allocation and retention
priority method is used to decide whether new bearer
modification or establishment request should be
accepted considering the current resource situation
• MBR / AMBR (Maximum Bit Rate / Aggregate
Maximum Bit Rate): Parameter used to specify the
maximum bit rate supported by a bearer.
III. QoS in LTE
This section of paper underlines different approach in
order to study end to end QoS in LTE, starting from the first
documents published during LTE standardization process
(2008) and then arriving to the recent studies focused on QoS
analysis in entire LTE transmission chain.
A. WiMAX vs LTE Qos
The guarantee of QoS is an essential aspect for provision of
Internet services in 4G broadband wireless network and its
main purpose is to meet the quality perceived by the user and
then to make optimal management of network resources.
As first approach, QoS concept is studied for both WiMAX
and LTE networks making a comparison based on common
features OFDMA transmission scheme. Theremore a
dedicated QoS framework is developed by Alasti, Neekzad,
Hui and Vannithamby et al [3].
In [4] Bhagat, Halgaonkar and Wadhai present LTE and
WiMAX as two wireless broadband technologies designed to
support QoS. So, LTE has a faster and simpler deployment
mechanisms than WiMAX and it can provide better
performances in terms of reduction of latency, high data rate
and rapid HARQs.
Four main key factors must be considered for an useful
comparison of QoS techniques in WiMAX and LTE:
a. WiMAX is a standard IP wireless (IEEE 802.16) system
and it defines IP network architecture for the air access
 interface, composed by Terminal equipments, Subscriber
stations and Base Station. LTE standard defines a FULL
IP architecture composed by the air interface (E-UTRAN)
and a core network (EPC). The first studies of QoS in LTE
take inspiration from those related to WiMAX network air
interface.
b. Both LTE and WiMAX air interfaces use the physical
layer radio access technology called OFDMA (Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiple Access) that is a digital
multi-carrier modulation scheme.
c. The QoS transport unit in WiMAX is called IP Service
Flow and it represents unidirectional flow of packets in
uplink or downlink direction. The LTE QoS transport unit
is the EPS bearer, a virtual path between UE and PDN-
GW.
d. In WiMAX Standard Service Flows are treated following
different criteria defined by 5 QoS service classes (UGS,
ertPS, rtPS, nrtPS, and BE). In LTE standard two types of
bearer are considered: GBR bearer, in order to guarantee a
minimum data rate like rtPS), and non-GBR Bearer, used
for best effort traffic.
This four key factors show a strong link between approach
to QoS in WiMAX and LTE. They also underline LTE’s
necessity to make an efficient tradeoff between high
performances (especially in terms of data rate) and QoS
guaranteed for end user.
B. Qos in E-UTRAN
Papers published after LTE vs WiMAX comparison focus
their attention on radio access network (E-UTRAN) of LTE.
The main concept of [5] is a LTE QoS model valid for
evolved 3G radio interface (E-UTRAN) and able to estimate
radio link performance between the UE and the eNodeB. This
can make an efficient provision of a service.
The general scenario is based on downlink performance
measurement at different protocol layers: PHYsical (PHY),
Medium Access Control (MAC), Radio Link Control (RLC)
and Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP).
QoS Model at PHY layer gives the configuration to a variable-
rate multiuser and multichannel scenario: this gives channel
capacity in a typical LTE network. At MAC layer the model
defines two different QoS-scheduling algorithms: Round
Robin (RR) and Modified Largest Weighted Delay First (M-
LWDF). Simulations at PHY and MAC layers give indications
about the achievable users’ throughput. Simulation results
show that user throughput depends not only on the channel
quality and relatives load conditions but also by the specific
multiplexed scheduling algorithm.
The proposed QoS Model follows a cross-layer mechanism for
the protocol stack of the radio link and it shows the QoS
needed at different layers. The approach is bottom-up and it is
based on cumulative performance degradation at different
protocol layers of E-UTRAN (PHY, MAC, RLC e PDCP).
A set of performance indicators (throughput, delay, packet
loss rate) are evaluated layer-by-layer. The proposed model is
streaming service-oriented and the scenario consists of mobile
terminals connected to a streaming server over LTE
technology.
In [6] impact of QoS support in a LTE network is studied in
case of delivering multiple services. For this purpose, in [6] a
system simulation is presented in order to assess network
capacity in two downlink scenarios. The first one is based on
best effort network without QoS provisioning, while in the
second one on LTE network with QoS provisioning.
Both of them define capacity as the maximum number of users
in the cell and perform simulations with user services like
VoIP, Real-Time Video, Mobile TV and Web Surfing.
Analytical model for the best effort network without service
differentiation is presented and simulated with generated
packets placed in their arrival order. The other analytical
model is presented and simulated for the scenario with two
queues of generated packets: their allocation depends on type
of generating services.
Traffic mix combination both for the best effort network and
for network with QoS provisioning are simulated to measure
the cell capacity. Simulation results of two simulated scenarios
are compared. Importance of techniques for service
differentiation in case of delay-critical services (e.g. VoIP) is
demonstrated, especially if they are delivered in combination
with delay-insensitive traffic services like TCP or Web
Browsing. Conclusions underline benefit of QoS management
able to support mobile operator for service differentiation and
prioritization.
The paper [7] proposes a combined Admission Control (AC)
and Packet Scheduling (PS) framework for QoS provisioning
in LTE uplink transmissions. To provide QoS control both AC
and PS systems must be QoS-aware. The QoS aware AC
algorithm can decide if admit a new user in a cell depending
on cell traffic load information. This is realized using
Fractional Power Control (FPC) algorithm that checks if
Physical resource Blocks (PRBs) required from the new user
are available and if they can be assigned to him. The QoS
aware PS allocates dynamically shared data channels to the
active radio bearer by two steps. The first time-domain packet
scheduling (TD-PS) is used to set users’ prioritization. User’s
multiplexing is made using frequency-domain packet
scheduling (FD-PS).
FD-PS algorithm can adopt two different metrics. The first
one is a Proportional Fair Scheduled FD-PS metric built on
relationship between the achievable throughput of user on
physical resource block and average of scheduled user
throughput. The second metric is GBR-aware FD-PS that
gives higher priority to a user which is far below its GBR
requirements.
Performances are estimated using different Key Performance
Indicators (KPI), such as average user throughput, average cell
throughput, blocking probability and outage probability. As in
paper [6], this document underlines importance of techniques
for QoS provisioning and service differentiation in a mixed
traffic scenario, especially in entire LTE network (both
network access and core network subsystems).
Paper [8] is a recent study on LTE network performance
evaluation of cross layer QoS scheduling. LTE software
simulation tool is used to analyze performance of Cross Layer
Two-way Scheduling Algorithm (CTSA) for treatment of Real
Time (RT) and Non Real Time (NRT) services in a multi-cell
scenario environment. The CTSA algorithm is developed
using different types of scheduler, like Proportional Fair (PF),
Modified Long Weighted Delay First (M-LWDF) and
Exponential Proportional Fair (EXP/PF) scheduler. The PF
scheduler aim is to maximize the total network throughput and
to guarantee fairness among traffic flows. The M-LWDF
scheduler erases the RT packets from MAC queue if they are
not transmitted before expiration of their fixed deadline. The
EXP/PF scheduler increases the priority of RT flows. Scenario
considered for simulations is multi cell and multi users one.
Most important results of simulations are given in terms of
throughput, packet loss ratio, delay and cell spectral
efficiency, and fairness index. They are strictly related to a
cross layer approach only used in Radio Access Network
Subsystem (E-UTRAN).
C. End to end Qos
And end-to-end approach of a QoS guaranteed in 3GPP
mobile networks was already studied by 3GPP Work Groups.
In fact [9] presents guidelines to be followed by Mobile
Network Operators (MNO) in order to assure an efficient end-
to-end QoS treatment in UMTS networks.
Fig 3: End-to-End QoS Architecture (Font: 3GPP)
In this 3GPP Technical Specification end-to-end QoS
management architecture is described, focusing on bearer
services, integration with IMS systems and multimedia
services and relationship with network control plane functions.
So minimum levels can be defined for a QoS of a particular
service in terms of Bandwidth, Delay, Packet Loss Rate (PLR)
e Jitter.
In LTE networks a strong interest for end to end QoS is still
growing up, but the first papers analyze only Radio Interface
Access Network (E-UTRAN). E-UTRAN is the most
important section of entire LTE mobile network because it is
directly linked to end user. Thus transmissions over radio
waves must follow particular criteria, especially in terms of
coverage and capacity.
As discussed in [10], a particular E-UTRAN subsystem -
named MAC Scheduler - is dedicated to allocate radio
resources according to the type of service to deliver (voice call
over IP, web browsing or video streaming).
The goal of this paper is to study how MNO must deliver
VoIP, Video, HTTP and FTP services to end user over LTE
networks considering different QoS requirements of each
bearer, firstly GBR (Guaranteed Bit Rate) and secondly non-
GBR.
A model of LTE MAC Scheduler with multi QoS aware
functions is presented using two different approaches: Time
Domain (TD) scheduling module (used to differentiate the
users according to their QoS characteristics) and Frequency
Domain (FD) scheduling module, responsible of radio
resources assignment procedures (i.e. PRBs, Physical
Resource Blocks) among different users’ priority.
FD scheduler defines a Priority Factor (PF) as ratio between
weight of MAC QoS class and data rate accumulated in the
previous steps. TD Scheduler analyses GBR candidate list
provided by the TD scheduler. Thus PRBs (Physical Resource
Blocks) allocation process is iterative, where one PRB
associated to the highest SINR value is allocated for one
bearer during each iteration.
Therefore a simulation activity is conducted considering 3
different scenarios, four type of QoS services (VoIP, Video,
HTTP and FTP), their mix usage and their delivering with
different priority.
Fig 3: Simulation Scenarios [10]
The objective of simulation is to study LTE network
performance in case of delivering four mixed services within
one QoS class, firstly mixing GBR and non-GBR ones and
secondly separating them.
So in the Scenario 1 all four services are delivered to users
(with no GBR prioritization), in Scenario 2 VOIP and Video
bearers (GBR) are separated from HTTP and FTP bearers
(non-GBR), in Scenario 3 each service is delivered by one
different bearer (in this case there are two GBR bearers and
two non-GBR bearers).
Simulation results show performances of VoIP bearers are still
good even when they are mixed delivered with the non-GBR
bearers in one MAC QoS class. Thus is true because VoIP
bearers have relatively small data rate which inherently gave
them higher priority.
In contrast, the video bearers suffer significantly when mixed
with the non-GBR bearers because of their higher data rate.
Since HTTP bearers deliver a lower data volume than FTP
ones, a good practice is to deliver FTP with no mixing it in
one MAC QoS class and then to assign the HTTP on a higher
MAC QoS class than FTP.
Approach of [10] is mostly focused on LTE services QoS
considering user plane, but a complete approach to LTE
performance estimation may also consider correlation between
user plane and control plane [11]. Thus can be provided by
interaction of LTE backhaul network with LTE core network.
Since a powerful end-to-end Performance Management is
strictly related to a good QoS perceived by end user, LTE
backhaul network allows MNO to consider factors of real
conditions of their networks (data traffic, congestions, faults)
and then to prevent negative effects of service delivering.
Relationship between user plane and control plane is described
by an end to end bearer QoS model using an efficient
CoS/QoS mapping using DSCP. So a final table with Data
Path (User Plane) and Signaling Path (Control Plane)
informations can be defined.
Main criteria of CoS/QoS mapping involve two dimensions:
cross-layer mapping and cross-domain mapping. In this way
QoS mechanisms are used both in each layer of the protocol
stack and in each portion of the network, addressing great
benefits in terms of network throughput and service
availability.
3GPP Technical Specifications specify LTE QoS mechanism
defining QoS Class Identifier (QCI) and linking it to DSCP
information. This mechanism is only valid for LTE networks
domains with the same DSCP values.
Since transport networks must carry out IP Packet coming
from heterogeneous environment (not only LTE networks),
may be useful mapping DSCP to QoS classes in transport
networks following this approach:
- Each EPS bearer is associated with a QCI and ARP
(Allocation and Retention Priority) information
- LTE network equipment will map QCI to DSCP before
forwarding traffic towards transport network. Each DSCP
identifies a unique QCI and DSCP markings are written to
the ToS field in the header of IP packets
- Transport network should apply DSCP markings in the
traffic in order to implement functions of classification,
prioritization, and schedule.
This workflow is realized by apposite Performance
Management System (PMS) composed by several logic nodes.
The most important one is QoS Diagnostic Engine, because it
can determine whether the network is impaired (the QoS
cannot be guaranteed) and data correlation from other logical
modules.
In this way Performance Monitoring System (PMS) is able to
compose CoS/QoS mapping table and then to detect possible
impairments in transport networks given by mismatch of CoS
and QoS mapping.
In order to make an efficient study of end to end LTE QoS not
only transport networks are to be analyzed but also service
reception conditions of end user [12]. A good perceived
quality is mandatory especially in condition of end user
mobility. In this case end to end delay in the entire
transmission chain begin to affect considerably service
transmissions, VoIP in particular.
[12] underlines importance of simulation activity and End-to-
End (E2E) delay measurement in real-time applications (e.g.
VoIP) to be performed in order to study overall QoS
performance in LTE networks.
This paper present a simulation activity conducted considering
three network scenarios: Baseline VoIP network with 50%
network load, VoIP network with 95% network load and VoIP
congested with FTP network scenarios.
For each scenario four cases are evaluated, one case with
stationary node and other three cases with mobile nodes
(gradually increasing the node speed). The simulation results
for baseline VoIP network (non-congested), congested VoIP
network and congested VoIP with FTP network show that as
the speed of node is gradually increased, E2E delay is slightly
increased.
IV. Conclusions
Authors analyzed different approach to guarantee QoS in
LTE networks. After WiMAX development, the first studies
on LTE network focused on the performance evaluation of
QoS-scheduling techniques at the radio interface. It means a
performance evaluation between User Equipments (UE) and
the eNodeB (eNB). Importance of QoS provisioning system is
demonstrated by models and frameworks based on packet
scheduling algorithms, cross layer mechanism, service
differentiation focused on radio access. Only recent studies are
focusing on end to end QoS approach for LTE, because
Mobile Network Operators (MNO) are forced to make a
tradeoff between high performance of this new radio mobile
technology (in terms of network performance, both access and
transport networks) and QoS perceived by end user. This issue
is becoming very crucial for LTE full deployment and roll out.
Next works will study this end to end approach and they
will define a framework to be considered for guaranteeing a
good service quality to end user.
Simulations of this approach will be provided.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Prof.
Giuseppe Iazeolla (University of Rome Tor Vergata) and
Maurizio Siviero, Ivano Guardini and Roberto Procopio
(Telecom Italia) for their important contributions on final
version of this document.
 References

[1] 3GPP TS 36-Series, http://www.3gpp.org/.

[2] 3GPP Technical Specification 23.207, “End-to-end Quality of Service
(QoS) concept and architecture”, http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-
info/23207.htm.
[3] M. Alasti, B. Neekzad, C.J. Hui and R. Vannithamby, “Quality of
Service in WiMAX and LTE Networks”, Intel Labs IEEE
Communications Magazine, , vol. 8, pp. 104-111, May 2010.
[4] P.M. Bhagat, P.S.Halgaonkar, and V.M. Wadhai, “Comparison of LTE
and WiMAX on the Basis of Qualities”, International Journal of P2P
Network Trends and Technology, vol. 1, 2011.
[5] G. Gomez, J. Poncela González, M. C. Aguayo-Torres, J. F. Paris, J. T.
Entrambasaguas. “QoS modeling for performance evaluation over
evolved 3G networks”, in Proc, of the 3rd ACM Workshop on QoS and
Security for Wireless and Mobile Networks (Q2SWinet), Oct. 2007.
[6] I. Siomina and S. Wanstedt, “The Impact of QoS Support on the End
User Satisfaction in LTE Networks with Mixed Traffic”, Personal,
Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2008. PIMRC 2008. IEEE
19th International Symposium on, pp. 1 – 5, 15-18 Sept. 2008.
[7] M. Anas, C. Rosa, F.D. Calabrese, K.I. Pedersen, and P.E. Mogensen,
“Combined Admission Control and Scheduling for QoS Differentiation
in LTE Uplink”, Vehicular Technology Conference, 2008. VTC 2008-
Fall. IEEE 68th, pp. 1 – 5, 21-24 Sept. 2008.
[8] D. Vinayagam, R. Kurinjimalar, D. Srinivasan, ” Performance
evaluation of cross layer QoS scheduling for Long Term Evolution
Network”, International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, vol. 2
number 3 issue 5, September 2012.
[9] 3GPP TS 23.207 v6.6.0, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Services and System Aspects; End-to-end Quality
of Service (QoS) concept and architecture”.
[10] Y. Zaki1, T. Weerawardane1, C. Görg1, and A. Timm-Giel, “Multi-
QoS-Aware Fair Scheduling for LTE”, Vehicular Technology
Conference (VTC Spring), 2011 IEEE 73rd , pp. 1 – 5, 15-18 May 2011.
[11] L. Li and S. Shen, “End-to-End QoS performance management across
LTE networks”, Network Operations and Management Symposium
(APNOMS), 2011 13th Asia-Pacific, pp. 1 – 4, 21-23 Sept. 2011.
[12] M.T. Aziz, M.E. Masum, M.J. Babu, S. Rahman, and J.Nordberg,
“Mobility Impact on the End-to-End Delay Performance for VoIP over
LTE”, International Conference on Communication Technology and
System Design 2011, vol. 30, 2012, pp 491–498.

View publication stats