On the Fronthaul Statistical Multiplexing Gain

0.14 MB·

by  Liumeng Wang

1
On the Fronthaul Statistical Multiplexing Gain
Liumeng Wang and Sheng Zhou, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Breakingthefronthaulcapacitylimitationsisvitalto
makecloudradioaccessnetwork(C-RAN)scalableandpractical. BBU
One promising way is aggregating several remote radio units
(RRUs) as a cluster to share a fronthaul link, so as to enjoy the Fronthaul Segment II
statisticalmultiplexinggainbroughtbythespatialrandomnessof Aggregator
thetraffic.Inthisletter,atractablemodelisproposedtoanalyze Fronthaul Segment I
7 thefronthaulstatisticalmultiplexinggain.Wefirstderivetheuser
1 blocking probability caused by the limited fronthaul capacity, RRU
0 including its upper and lower bounds. We then obtain the
2 limits of fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain when the cluster
size approaches infinity. Analytical results reveal that the user
n blocking probability decreases exponentially with the average
UE
a fronthaul capacity per RRU, and the exponent is proportional
J
to the cluster size. Numerical results further show considerable

8 fronthaulstatisticalmultiplexinggainevenatasmalltomedium
2 cluster size.
Fig.1. C-RANarchitecturewithfronthaullinksoftwo-segmentswithcluster
] Index Terms—Cloud-Radio Access Network (C-RAN), fron- sizeK=3.
T thaul, statistical multiplexing, stochastic geometry.
I
.
s for next generation fronthaul interface (NGFI) 1. Moreover,
c I. INTRODUCTION
with appropriate RRU-BBU functional split, data rates in
[
Recent evolution of radio access network (RAN) features the fronthaul links can be traffic-dependent [5]. As a result,

1 thebasebandprocessingcentralization,whichenablesefficient the randomness of user traffic can be exploited to enjoy the
v
cooperative signal processing and can potentially reduce the statistical multiplexinggain, in the hope of reducingthe fron-
6
operation and deployment costs. In a typical cloud radio thaul capacity demand. Some initial numerical studies have
6
2 access network (C-RAN) [1], baseband processing functions validatedthefronthaulstatisticalmultiplexinggainbroughtby
8 arecentralizedinbasebandunits(BBUs)whileradiofunctions the packeterized fronthaul and functional split [8]. Teletraffic
0 are integratedin remote radio units(RRUs). BBUs and RRUs theory and event-driven simulations are adopted in [9] to
.
1 are connected with fronthaul network, over which baseband analyze the fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain in C-RAN.
0 signals are transported. Despite many advantages, one major Inthispaper,weproposeatractablemodeltoquantitatively
7
design challenge of C-RAN is to meet its high fronthaul analyze the fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain. We derive
1
capacity demand. One typical interface between RRUs and the probability of user blocking due to the limited fronthaul
:
v BBUs is Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) [2], which capacity, and obtain its upper and lower bounds. We then use
i
X can only support fixed-rate delivery of raw baseband signals. large-limit analysis to get the closed-form expression of the
Forexample,1Gbpsfronthaulrateisrequiredevenbyasingle fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain, which enables quanti-
r
a 20MHz LTE antenna-carrier. fyingthe statistical multiplexinggain underlarge cluster size.
To ease the severe burden on the fronthaul,many solutions Numericalresultsfurtherconfirmthatevenasmalltomedium
have been proposed. On the link level, one direct way is to cluster size can obtain notable fronthaul rate reduction.
increase the fronthaul capacity, such as using single fiber bi-
direction, wavelength-division multiplexing, and etc [3]. The II. SYSTEMMODEL
other is to reduce the required data rate on the fronthaul,
Consider a fronthaul network with two segments shown
by means of baseband signal compression [4], RRU-BBU
in Fig.1. Fronthaul segment I represents the direct links
functionality splitting [5], radio resource allocation [6], and
between RRUs and the aggregators,treated as the ”last mile”
etc. On the network level, packet switching can provide
of the fronthaul network. It can be implemented by CPRI
hierarchical and flexible fronthaul networking [7], allowing
with acceptable costs due to the short transmission distances.
multiple RRUs to form a cluster and share a fronthaul link,
SegmentII is the connection between the aggregatorsand the
which is adopted by the recent IEEE 1914 working group
BBU,andeachlinkissharedbyK RRUsformedasacluster.
Our analysis is focusing on the fronthaul links in segment II.
ThisworkissponsoredinpartbytheNationalScienceFoundationofChina
(NSFC)undergrantNo.61571265,No.61461136004,andNo.91638204,and The capacity of a fronthaul link in segment II is denoted
IntelCollaborativeResearchInstituteforMobileNetworkingandComputing. by T, shared by an RRU cluster. If the RRU-BBU function is
Liumeng Wang and Sheng Zhou are with Tsinghua National
splitbetween layer1 andlayer 2 [5], or with properfronthaul
Laboratory for Information Science and Technology, Dept. of Electronic
Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China (Email:
[email protected]; [email protected]). 1http://sites.ieee.org/sagroups-1914/
2
compression schemes [4], the required fronthaulrate depends TheexpressionofPK,T isthesumofaninfiniteseries,andit
b
onthenumberofusersinthecorrespondingRRUs.Weassume ishardtohaveintuitivederivations.Nevertheless,theelements
that each user requires the same fronthaul rate, and unify in the summation of (4) have the following property:
the fronthaul capacity T as the maximum number of users
P {N =n+1}(n+1−T)/(n+1)
whose baseband signals can be transported in the fronthaul K
P {N =n}(n−T)/n
link simultaneously. K
The spatial distribution of RRUs is modeled by a homoge- (λu/λr)n(n+Ka)(n+1−T)
=
neous Poisson point process (PPP) with density λr, and the (λu/λr+b)(n+1)2(n−T)
spatial distribution of users is also assumed a homogeneous n+1−T
= aKλ, (5)
PPPwithdensityλ [10].Tosimplifytheanalysis,weassume n−T n
u
thatthereisnocoverageoverlapbetweenRRUs,i.e.,eachuser
where λ=(λ /λ)/(λ /λ +b), aK =n(n+Ka)/(n+1)2.
is severed by its nearest RRU, and as a result the coverage u r u r n
As n > T, according to the summation in (4), when T >
area of each RRU is a Voronoi cell. We assume that each
2/(Ka−2),
RRU’s location in the cluster is independent to each other
[9], and thus the coverage sizes of different RRUs are also 1<aK ≤(T +1)(T +Ka+1)/(T +2)2, (6)
n
independent. Denote the coverage size of the ith RRU as x ,
i
and the distribution of xi can be approximated by a gamma and only when n=T +1, aKn = (T+1()T(T++2)K2a+1). In fact, as
distribution, i.e., x ∼Γ(a,1/(bλ)), K ≥1 and T ≥1, T >2/(Ka−2) will always hold unless
i r
Γ(a,1/(bλr))=(bλr)a(xi)a−1e(−bλrxi)/Γ(a), aKna=lys1isa.nWdeTca=n1th,uwshgiceht aisloawterirvbiaolusncdenoafriPoKig,Tnoarsed in our
b
wherea=3.5,b=3.5[11],andΓ(·)istheGammafunction.
∞
Aarsetthheesscaamlee,pdaernaomteettehrestboλ1tralocfovalelrathgeeKsizegaomfKmaRdRisUtrsibaustixon=s PbK,T > PK{NT=+T1 +1} (n−T)λn−T−1
n=XT+1
K x , x∼Γ Ka, 1 [12]. The probability distribution
i=1 i (cid:16) bλr(cid:17) = PK{N =T +1} ,PK,T. (7)
Pof x given K is then (T +1)(1−λ)2 b,LB
(bλ)Ka
f (x)= r (x)Ka−1e(−bλrx). (1) Similarly, we find an upper bound of PK,T as
x|K Γ(Ka) b
Giventhe RRU cluster coveragesize x, the totalnumberof
P {N =T +1}
users in the RRU cluster , denoted by N, obeys the Poisson PK,T < K
b T +1
distribution with mean λ x, i.e.,
u
∞ n−T−1
PK{N =n|x}= (λux)ne−λux. (2) × (n−T)(cid:18)(T +1)((TT++2K)2a+1)λ(cid:19)
n! n=XT+1
According to (1) and (2), the distribution of N is ∞ n−1
P {N =T +1} (T +1)(T +Ka+1)λ
K
∞ = n
T +1 (cid:18) (T +2)2 (cid:19)
PK{N =n}= PK{N =n|x}fx|K(x)dx nX=1
Z
0 P {N =T +1}
= ∞ (λux)neλux(bλr)Ka(x)Ka−1e(−bλrx)dx =(T +1) K1− (T+1)(T+Ka+1)λ 2 ,PbK,U,BT. (8)
Z n! Γ(Ka) (T+2)2
0 (cid:16) (cid:17)
= bKa(λu/λr)nΓ(n+Ka) . (3) Furthermore, when T approaches infinity,
(λ /λ +b)Ka+nΓ(Ka)n!
u r 2
III. USERBLOCKING PROBABILITY lim PbK,L,BT = lim (cid:16)1− (T+1)((TT++2K)2a+1)λ(cid:17) =1, (9)
Due to the fronthaulcapacity limitation, the services of the T→+∞PK,T T→+∞ (1−λ)2
b,UB
users may be blocked.If the total numberof users per cluster
whichmeansthatwhenT approachesinfinity,theupperbound
N is larger than the fronthaul capacity T, only the baseband
tends to be equal to the lower bound. As a result, the user
signals of T (randomly selected) users will be transmitted in blockingprobabilityPK,T canbewellapproximatedbyeither
thefronthaul,whileservicesoftheremainingN−T usersare b
the upper bound or the lower bound when T is large.
blocked. The quality of service (QoS) requires the blocking
probability be smaller than a threshold Pth. Given the RRU
b
cluster size K and the shared fronthaul capacity T, the user IV. MULTIPLEXINGGAIN ANALYSIS
blocking probability is expressed as Denoted by T (Pth) the minimum fronthaul capacity to
K b
∞ satisfyagivenuserblockingprobabilityrequirementPthwhen
PbK,T = PK{N =n}(n−T)/n K RRUsaresharingthefronthaullink,thefronthaulstbatistical
n=XT+1 multiplexing gain G (Pth) is accordingly defined as
K b
∞ bKa(n−T)(λ /λ)nΓ(n+Ka)
= u r . (4) T (Pth)−T (Pth)/K T (Pth)
n=XT+1 n(λu/λr+b)Ka+nΓ(Ka)n! GK(Pbth)= 1 b T (PKth) b =1− KKT (Pbth),
1 b 1 b
3
which represents the relative saving of the equivalent fron- Thus when K approachesinfinity, lim PK,T =1−T,
K→+∞ b µ
thaul capacity per RRU compared with the scenario with no and the minimum required equivalent fronthaul capacity is
fronthaul sharing, i.e., K =1.
T (Pth)
The closed-form expression of G (Pth) with general K is lim K b =(1−Pth)µ. (17)
K b K→+∞ K b
hard to derive. Nevertheless, we can still get the closed-form
expression with large-K limit, as follows. According to (10) and (17), we get
T (Pth) (1−Pth)µ
Proposition 1. When the cluster size K approaches infinity, G (Pth)= lim 1− K b =1− b . (18)
(1−Pth)µ ∞ b K→+∞ KT1(Pbth) T1(Pbth)
G (Pth)=1− b , (10)
∞ b T (Pth)
1 b Thispropositionrevealstheultimatemultiplexinggainwith
where µ = λ /λ is the average number of users in the RRU fronthaul sharing, which is obtained when the RRU
u r
coverage of an RRU. cluster size K approaches infinity, and via numerical results
we will show that the majority of the gain can be achieved
Proof: Given the RRU cluster size K, we have
even with small to medium RRU cluster sizes. Furthermore,
E(N|K) = Kµ as the coverage sizes of different RRUs are
we characterizehow the RRU cluster size K can expeditethe
independent.Accordingto the law of largenumbers,when K
decreasingrateoftheuserblockingprobabilityPK,T w.r.t.the
approaches infinity, for any positive real ǫ, we have b
equivalent fronthaul capacity T in the following proposition.
lim PK(|N/K−µ|>ǫ)=0. (11) Proposition 2. When T approaches infinity, PK,T decreases
K→∞ b
exponentially with the equivalent fronthaul capacity T, and
We define the equivalent fronthaul capacity allocated to each
the exponent is proportional to K.
RRU as T =T/K. If T >µ, according to (11),
∞ Proof: For fronthaul capacity T +1, the user blocking
n−KT
lim PK,T = lim P (N =n) probability can be expressed as
K→+∞ b K→+∞n=XKT+1 n K ∞ bKa(n−T −1)(λ /λ)nΓ(n+Ka)
∞ PK,T+1 = u r
≤ lim PK(N =n) b n=XT+2 n(λu/λr+b)Ka+nΓ(Ka)n!
K→+∞n=XKT+1 ∞ bKa(n−T)(λ /λ)n+1Γ(n+1+Ka)
u r
=K→lim+∞PK(NK −µ>T −µ)=0. (12) =n=XT+1(n+1)(λu/λr+b)Ka+n+1Γ(Ka)(n+1)!
∞ bKa(n−T)(λ /λ)nΓ(n+Ka)
If T <µ, for any positive real ǫ<(µ−T), = aKλ u r .
∞ n=XT+1 n n(λu/λr+b)Ka+nΓ(Ka)n!
lim PK,T = lim n−KTP (N =n) (19)
K→+∞ b K→+∞ X n K When T >2/(Ka−2), according to (6), we have
n=KT+1
n=K(µ+ǫ)n−KT PK,T+1 (T +1)(T +Ka+1)
= lim P (N =n) λ< b < λ. (20)
K→+∞n=KX(µ−ǫ) n K PbK,T (T +2)2
K(µ−ǫ)−KT Taking the limit of (20) with T approaching infinity, leads to
≥ lim P (|N/K−µ|≤ǫ)
K
K(µ−ǫ) K→+∞ PK,T+1
lim b =λ,
=1− T . (13) T→+∞ PbK,T
µ−ǫ lim log(PK,T+1)−log(PK,T)=log(λ). (21)
b b
Similarly, we get T→+∞
Note that λ=(λ /λ)/(λ /λ +b). According to (21),
n=K(µ+ǫ) u r u r
n−KT T
K→lim+∞n=KX(µ−ǫ) n PK(N =n)≤1− µ+ǫ. (14) T→lim+∞dlogd(PTbK,T) =Klog(λ). (22)
According to (13) and (14), for any positive real δ, there
always exists a positive real ǫ<min{ µ2δ ,µ−T}, s.t.
T+µδ
V. NUMERICAL RESULTS
n=K(µ+ǫ)
n−KT T The average number of users per RRU λ /λ is set to
u r
(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)K→lim+∞n=KX(µ−ǫ) n PK(N =n)−(1− µ)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)<δ, 5totianllyou1r00n0umReRrUicsa,lasntuddeya.cFhoKr th=e1s,im3,u5l,a1ti0o,n2s0,,w50e,caonndsi1d0e0r
(cid:12) (cid:12) (15)
(cid:12) (cid:12) RRUsareselectedasacluster,respectively.Theuserblocking
i.e., for any positive real δ,
probabilityw.r.t. the equivalentfronthaulcapacity per RRU T
T is presented in Fig. 2. With the same T, the larger the cluster
lim PK,T −(1− ) <δ. (16)
(cid:12)K→+∞ b µ (cid:12) sizeK,thesmallertheuserblockingprobabilitywillbe.With
(cid:12) (cid:12)
(cid:12) (cid:12)
(cid:12) (cid:12)
4
100 12
Pth=0.1
K,TUser blocking probability Pb1111100000−−−−−54321 0.00.501 6KKKKKK======113355,,, SSSiiimmm...8 10 K increases thEquivalent fronthaul capacity per RRU T(P)/KKb110156789 Pbth increases PPPPPbbtbtbtbtbthhhhh=====00000.....10000,5511 S,, SSimiimm...
10−6 4
0 5 10 15 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
EquilaventfronthaulcapacityperRRUT Cluster size K
Fig. 2. User blocking probability versus equivalent fronthaul capacity per Fig. 4. Required equivalent fronthaul capacity TK(Pbth)/K versus RRU
RRUT underdifferent clustersizeK. clustersizeK.Dashed-lines denoteT∞(Pbth).
100
Blocking Probability derive the user blocking probability PK,T given the RRU
10−1 LUopwpeerr BBoouunndd clustersizeK andthesharedfronthaulcabpacityT.Wefurther
Tangent Line
K,TPb10−2 get the upper bound and the lower bound of PbK,T. We then
User blocking probability 11110000−−−−6543 abfcfrrnlloouoannscltyttkehhziraaneuugslltiphzmcreeaou.pblstaNatiacpbutiliitemlsyixtt,ieyicnraaidgncle,dactmlhrteeuhraelerstseieupqeslluxteesipxrxoeipfnnduogeranntvhegtenearirtiasinagrlpeelayrvnfoerdwpoaonlifitrthhtntihadotahuntelathcltaaahvttproeoarucuatsighgteyheer
perRRUcanbenotablyreduced,andevenasmalltomedium
10−7
clustersizecanobtainconsiderablefronthaulcapacitysavings.
10−8
5 10 15
EquilaventfronthaulcapacityperRRUT
REFERENCES
Fig.3. Theupperboundandlower boundoftheuserblocking probability [1] China Mobile, “C-RAN: the road towards green RAN,” White Paper,
whenK=5. Version3.0,Dec2013.
[2] CPRI Specification V6.0, “Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI),”
Interface Specification, 2013.
larger K, the user blocking probability also decreases more [3] I.Chih-Lin,J.Huang,R.Duan,C.Cui,J.X.Jiang,andL.Li,“Recent
progress on C-RAN centralization and cloudification,” IEEE Access,
rapidly. Note that in Fig. 2, the y-axis of the smal rectangle
vol.2,pp.1030–1039,2014.
is decimal while the large y-axis is logarithmic. [4] J. Lorca and L. Cucala, “Lossless compression technique for the
Theupperandlowerboundsoftheuserblockingprobability fronthaulofLTE/LTE-advancedcloud-RANarchitectures,”inIEEE14th
InternationalSymposiumandWorkshopsonaWorldofWireless,Mobile
are presented in Fig. 3 when K = 5. We can see that with
andMultimedia Networks (WoWMoM), June2013,pp.1–9.
mediumtolargeequivalentfronthaulcapacityT,theblocking [5] U. Do¨tsch, M. Doll, H.-P. Mayer, F. Schaich, J. Segel, and P. Sehier,
probabilitycan be well approximatedby the upperboundand “Quantitativeanalysisofsplitbasestationprocessinganddetermination
of advantageous architectures for LTE,” Bell Labs Technical Journal,
thelowerbound.Thetangentlineshowsthattheuserblocking
vol.18,no.1,pp.105–128, 2013.
probability decreases exponentially with T when T is large, [6] M. Peng, C. Wang, V. Lau, and H. V. Poor, “Fronthaul-constrained
which agrees with Proposition 2. cloud radio access networks: Insights and challenges,” IEEE Wireless
Communication, vol.22,no.2,pp.152–160, 2015.
IftherequireduserblockingprobabilityPthis5%,asshown
b [7] J. Liu, S. Xu, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, “Redesigning fronthaul for next-
inFig.4,whenK =1,theminimumrequiredfronthaulcapac- generationnetworks:beyondbasebandsamplesandpoint-to-pointlinks,”
ity T (0.05)=8, while T (0.05)/5=5.8, the corresponding IEEEWireless Communications, vol.22,no.5,pp.90–97,2015.
1 5 [8] C.-Y. Chang, R. Schiavi, N. Nikaein, T. Spyropoulos, and C. Bonnet,
fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain G (0.05) = 27.5%.
5 “Impact of packetization and functional split on C-RAN fronthaul
When cluster size K approaches infinity, according to (10), performance,” inProc.IEEEICC’16,May2016.
G (0.05) = 40.6%. Fig. 4 also shows that when the cluster [9] A. Checko, A. P. Avramova, M. S. Berger, and H. L. Christiansen,
∞ “EvaluatingC-RANfronthaulfunctionalsplitsintermsofnetworklevel
sizeK increases,theequivalentfronthaulcapacityrequiredper
energy and cost savings,” Journal of Communications and Networks,
RRU tendstodecrease.Thedecreasingrateslowsdownwhen vol.18,no.2,pp.162–172, 2015.
K increases, and a small to medium sized cluster can obtain [10] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach
to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Transactions on
substantial statistical multiplexing gain close to the large-K
Communications, vol.59,no.11,pp.3122–3134, 2011.
limit in Proposition 1. [11] J.-S.FerencandZ.Ne´da,“OnthesizedistributionofPoissonVoronoi
cells,” PhysicaA:Statistical Mechanics andits Applications, vol. 385,
no.2,pp.518–526,2007.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
[12] P.G.Moschopoulos,“Thedistributionofthesumofindependentgamma
Inthispaper,wehaveproposedatractablemodeltoanalyze random variables,” Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics,
vol.37,no.1,pp.541–544, 1985.
the fronthaul statistical multiplexing gain in C-RAN. We