Workshop - Best of Both Worlds_ Combine KG and Vector search for enhanced R...
Improving Microwave Capacity
1. AVIAT ADVANCED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY SEMINAR
IMPROVING MICROWAVE CAPACITY
U N D E R S TA N D I N G T E C H N I Q U E S TO I M P R O V E T H R O U G H P U T
1
2. microwave
is just a big pipe
you get out what you put in
4. How to Understand Vendor Capacity Claims?
• It is getting increasingly harder to
compare capacity claims from
various vendors
• Multiple techniques are being
employed to boost throughput figures
• We will attempt to explain the various
techniques and how they impact
capacity
4 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
5. How can you get more data through the pipe?
how do you get more data
through the pipe?
5 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011
6. Strategies for Increasing Microwave Capacities
More
Spectral
More
Spectrum
More
“Effec5ve”
Efficiency
(More
Hz)
Throughput
(More
Bits
per
Hz)
(More
Data
per
Bit)
Technique
Technique
Technique
Higher
Modula6on
Levels
Wider
Channels
Header
Op6miza6on/
Suppression/Compression
Adap6ve
Modula6on
Mul6ple
channels
with
link
aggrega6on
(incl.
CCDP)
Payload
Compression
Reduced
FEC
Redundancy
Asymmetric
Opera6on
6 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
7. get a bigger pipe!
How Bigger get more data through the pipe?
Get acan you Pipe!
7 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011
9. use more efficient schemes
How Bigger get more data through the pipe?
Get acan you Pipe!
to pack more data into the pipe
9 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011
10. Increasing Modulation Level
þ Improves bits/Hz efficiency within the Modula6on
Bits/Symbol
Incremental
same channel size Level
(QAM)
Bits/s/Hz
Capacity
Gain
☒ Diminishing capacity improvement with 4
(QPSK)
2
-‐
every higher modulation step 8
3
50%
☒ Much lower system gain - shorter hops, 16
4
33%
larger antennas
32
5
25%
☒ Much higher sensitivity to interference –
64
6
20%
difficult link coordination, reduced link
density 128
7
17%
☒ Increased phase noise and linearity – 256
8
14%
increased design complexity cost 512
9
13%
þ Should be deployed with ACM to offset 1024
10
11%
lower system gain 2048
11
10%
10 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
11. Higher Modulation = More Capacity, but…
10% 45 110
Carrier to Interference Ratio (C/I), dB
15% 40 105
Capacity Increase
20% 35 100
System Gain, dB
25% 30 95
30% 25 90
35% 20 85
40% 15 80
45% 10 75
50% 5 70
55% 0 65
1024QAM
2048QAM
16QAM
32QAM
64QAM
128QAM
256QAM
512QAM
8QAM
11 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
12. Applying Adaptive Modulation
• AM/ACM allows higher order modulations to be employed, but
mitigate the adverse effects
• Modulation rate/capacity adapts to increase system gain
when needed
• Fixed modulation links can be upgraded to ACM to:
1. Increase link capacity
2. Decrease antenna size, and so tower rental costs
3. Increase link availability
4. Or, a combination of 1+2+3
12 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
13. Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Typical Radio Frame
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
FEC
bytes
enable
radio
to
Bytes
reserved
for
radio
correct
a
limited
number
of
link
and
network
bit
errors,
increasing
management
informa6on
receiver
performance
13 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
14. Forward Error Correction
Typical Radio Frame
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
‘Light’ FEC
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
Less
FEC
Increased
Payload
=
=
Decreased
Higher
Throughput
System
Gain
14 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
15. ‘Strong’ Forward Error Correction
Typical Radio Frame
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
‘Light’ FEC
Decreased
Payload
More
FEC
=
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
=
Lower
Throughput
Beaer
System
Gain
‘Strong’ FEC
NMS
PAYLOAD
FEC
15 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
16. use more than one pipe
Use more than one pipe
16 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011
17. Link Aggregation using IEEE 802.1AX
• The most common legacy link aggregation
approach (originally defined in IEEE 802.3ad)
• 802.1AX cannot dynamically redistribute traffic
load for optimal utilization of available links
Designed Supports
for this this
P1 P3 DPP1 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP1 P3 P1
Module
Module
P2 P4 DAC GE3 DAC GE3 P4 P2
4+0 Link
P3 P5 DPP2 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP2 P5 P3
CCDP/XPIC
LAG
or
P4 P3 DPP1 RAC 60 ACAP RAC 60 DPP1 P3 P4
Module
Module
P5 P4 DAC GE3 DAC GE3 P4 P5
P6 P5 DPP2 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP2 P5 P6
Switch/Router Eclipse INU/INUe Eclipse INU/INUe Switch/Router
17 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
18. Layer 1 Link Aggregation (L1 LA)
• Unique and Aviat patented radio link aggregation scheme designed to address
limitations of the traditional 802.1AX approach
• Uniform load balancing even for ACM links and carriers of different capacities
• High utilization and low added overhead
• Carrier-grade convergence and recovery from individual link failures (<50 msec)
Layer 2 (802.1AX) Domain
L1LA Domain
P1 P3 DPP1 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP1 P3 P1
Module
Module
P2 P4 DAC GE3 DAC GE3 P4 P2
LAG
LAG
P3 P5 DPP2 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP2 P5 P3
4+0 Link
P4 P3 DPP1 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP1 P3 P4
Module
Module
Stacking
P5 P4 DAC GE3 DAC GE3 P4 P5
P6 P5 DPP2 RAC 60 RAC 60 DPP2 P5 P6
Switch/Router Eclipse INU/INUe Eclipse INU/INUe Switch/Router
18 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
19. Comparing Link Aggregation Options
LAG
802.1AX
L1
LA
Load
balancing
Effec6veness
Medium
High
Easy
capacity
expansion
Yes
Yes
Latency
High
Low
Adap6ve
to
RF
No
Yes
L1LA is the ideal solution for N+0 links
19 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
20. only send the data
Only send the data that you need through the pipe
that you need
20 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011 through the pipe
21. Using Ethernet Optimization
• Using common Ethernet optimization
and compression techniques:
• Ethernet Frame Suppression
• MAC Header Compression
• Multi-Layer Header Compression
• Payload Compression
• Send only needed data over the radio
link. Suppress or compress
everything else
• Asymmetric link operation
21 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
22. Ethernet Frame Header Optimization
• Inter-frame Gap
and Preamble
Removal
• MAC Header
Compression
!
22 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
25. Multi-Layer Header Compression
• AKA ‘Packet Throughput Boost’, ‘Enhanced Packet Compression’ ‘Layer
1/2/3/4 Header Compression’ or ‘Deep Ethernet header compression’
• Adds compression of IPv4/v6 header address bytes
• Still highly dependent upon payload traffic type and frame size
25 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
26. Payload Compression
• Some microwave vendors are employing common
compression techniques
• Pros
• Replaces strings of repeated patterns of data
• Promises dramatic throughput improvement (2.5x), with no additional
spectrum requirement
• Cons
• Improvement is not guaranteed nor predictable, since it is highly
dependent on the traffic mix
• Increased link latency
• Most data traffic is already compressed
• Typical real-world improvement is minimal (~4%)
• Payload compression has not been generally adopted in
the industry
26 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
27. Asymmetric Link Operation
• Proposal to configure links with lower capacity upstream than
downstream
• Assumes downstream traffic is much higher volume than upstream, and
that backhaul links can be similarly dimensioned
• Claimed benefits are higher downstream speeds and frequency savings
(upstream)
27 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
29. Beware common tactics to inflate throughput
• Present throughput figures based upon 64 byte frame When it comes to
sizes only Microwave Capacity
• Assume that up to 100% (or a large proportion) of traffic is
compressible
• Assume availability of very wide channels (80 MHz)
• Assume 2+0 co-channel operation on the same frequency
assignment (using XPIC)
• Present half-duplex throughput figures
• Include non-payload overhead (NMS, FEC)
• Assume gains from other unproven techniques
Test, using an industry standard benchmark - RFC 2544
29 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
30. Best Case Throughput – 80 MHz channel 1024QAM
Throughput figures are stated in Mbit/s and are approximate for a Payload 2500
single 80MHz RF channel and 256QAM (unless otherwise stated)
Compression
‘Guaranteed’ throughput 2000
Maximum ‘Best Efforts’ throughput 2+0
64 byte frame size, ideal traffic profile
XPIC
1040
IFG+PA MAC HC 900
Strong Suppression 720 720*
Airlink FEC 450 520
* + Latency
340 360 360 360
30 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
31. Realistic Throughput – 30 MHz channel
Throughput figures are stated in Mbit/s and are approximate for a
single 30MHz RF channel and 256QAM (unless otherwise stated)
‘Guaranteed’ throughput
Maximum throughput
For 260 bytes average frame sizes, and 1024QAM
typical traffic profile
Payload
2+0 Compression 544
XPIC +25%
IFG+PA MAC HC 418 435 +4% 475
Strong Suppression
Airlink FEC
201 +6%
209 +4%
380 380*
180 190 190 190 * + Latency
31 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012
32. Capacity Improvements – Hype and Availability
Hype
Factor
Availability
Higher
Modula6on
Medium
6-‐12
months
Strong
FEC
Low
Now
ACM
Low
Now
Aggregated
Mul6-‐Channel
Low
Now
Traffic
Op6miza6on
High
Now
Payload
Compression
High
Now
Asymmetrical
Opera6on
High
??
32 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012