3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

Iur-g functionality in the GERAN

1 Introductionasaasasfafafafjygujdasdasd
It has been suggested by various parties that there is a compelling need for the Iu-r interface in
the GERAN between BSCs. This document details the rationale for such arguments and proposes
that the Iur-g functionality be limited to the control plane for the GERAN. These arguments are in
line with the GERAN Stage 2 description. The document also details significant difficulties in
implementing the Iur-g for user plane transport as well.

2 Background -- Need for the Iur Interface in UTRAN

Core Network
Iu

Iu

RNS

RNS
Iur

RNC
Iub
Node B

RNC

Iub

Iub

Node B

Node B

Figure 1 The UTRAN architectureaaaasasdsadadsdasdasdadsdasad

Iub
Node B

3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

Radio
Network
Layer

Control Plane

User Plane

RNSAP

Iur Data
Stream(s)

[Note 1]

Transport
Network
Layer

Transport Network
User Plane

Transport Network
Control Plane

Transport Network
User Plane

ALCAP(Q.2630.1)
[Note 2]

SCCP

STC (Q.2150.1)

MTP3-B

ITUN

MTP3-B

ITUN

SSCF-NNI
SSCF-NNI

SCTP

SSCF-NNI
SSCF-NNI

SCTP

SSCOP

UDP / IP

AAL5

SSCOP

UDP / IP

AAL5

AAL2

ATM
Physical Layer

Figure 2. The Iur Protocol stack

Being a CDMA system, the UTRAN implements soft-handover to maximise coverage and
capacity. The Node-B element is capable of combining the waveforms received from multiple
uplink connections using procedures commonly termed as softer-handover. When cell sites do
not connect to a common Node-B element, the RNS can choose the best uplink signal using
soft-handover procedures. As part of these procedures, the UTRAN implements the RLC and
MAC layers at the RNC. The Iur interface is thus capable of carrying MAC frames between a
drift RNC towards a serving RNC when the mobile is connected to more than one base station.
Carrying MAC frames across the Iur interface results in
1. Easy synchronisation of data so that the signal from one of a set of Nodes-B may be chosen
on the uplink, as well as synchronisation of the downlink for macrodiversity combining at the
mobile.
2. Hysteresis during relocation prevents a ping-pong effect of mobiles going back and forth
between base stations.
3. SRNS relocation procedures are separated from handover procedures. The master-slave
relationship between serving and drift RNCs allows a streamlining of handover and
relocation.

3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

It is reiterated that the Iur interface is designed thus in order to enable soft handover for the
UTRAN. It is also pointed out that soft handover is irrelevant for the GERAN, with minimal
advantages.

3 Iur-g for the GERAN

BTS

Gn

TRX

PCU

BSC

SGSN
Gb/Iu
Iur-g
Gn

BTS
TRX

PCU

BSC

SGSN
Gb/Iu

GERAN R'00 Reference Architecture

PS Domain
Figure 3. A likely and preferred implementation of the GERAN for Release 2000. Only the
PS interface is shown.
3G.PP 23.060 details three possible positions for the Packet Control Unit (PCU), namely the
BTS, the BSC and the SGSN. Conformance to the Iu interface precludes the last of these options
at no great loss to the industry. Specification of an Iur-g interface for the user plane will
effectively curtail the implementation of the PCU at the BTS. It is argued further that there are
clear advantages to such an implementation, and therefore, manufacturers would like to retain
that option.
Figure 3is a likely implementation of the GERAN for Release 2000. For simplicity, the CS
components have been excised from the picture. In this implementation, the Packet Control Unit
(PCU) which encompasses the RLC/MAC layer will be placed at the BTS site. The PDCP layer
will be implemented at the BSC. It is well known that such an implementation provides great
advantages in the multiplexing efficiency of shared bearers over the radio channel. In short, the
MAC layer should be as close to the implementation of the Physical layer as possible.

3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

The GPRS specification does allow the PCU to be placed at the BSC, but the following
difficulties arise with that implementation:
1. The separation of RLC and MAC functionality is not clearly defined and therefore, the
RLC/MAC layer functionality will have to be at the BSC. Adding of buffering to the
transmission network will result in longer latencies.
2. Since the scheduling of transmissions will occur at the PCU, the resource allocation up to the
BTS will have to be equivalent to setting up a circuit for each air interface time slot. As a
result, there has to be close synchronisation between the BSC and the CCU. The reason for
this is that the RLC/MAC blocks, which are transferred in the transmission network (in these
configurations), are synchronised to the air interface.
3. The signalling overhead on the BTS-to-BSC interface is considerably more. It is estimated
that this increase to be of the order of 25-35%.
4. ARQ will have to occur over the transmission network adding to delay and throughput will
be compromised.
The main advantage with a PCU in the RBS is that both air interface and landline performance
can be optimized, without compromising one for the other.
The UTRAN does not rely on link adaptation or Hybrid ARQ to achieve better throughput
efficiencies. Instead, the reliance is more on fast power control to maintain constant radio
conditions. As a result, the UTRAN did not need to place the RLC/MAC layers at the BTS. The
needs of soft handover dictated that these layers be placed at the RNC.

3.1

Advantages of the Iur-g for the user plane

The primary advantage of implementing the full Iur functionality within Iur-g is alignment with
UTRAN. However, this alignment does not enhance functionality in any measurable way.
Specification of a protocol stack such as in Figure 2 will ensure that there is little or no change to
the core network procedures towards the GERAN with respect to the UTRAN. For manufacturers
that intend using a common platform for the RNC and the BSC, all interfaces as defined will be
available readily, and it would be possible to use like hardware implementations for the BSC and
the RNC.

3.2

Disadvantages of the Iur-g for the user plane

The implementation of Figure 3 will put undue burden on the specification of the Iur interface,
since MAC frames will have to be transported across the BTS/BSC interface prior to forwarding
between the drift BSC and the serving BSC. It is pointed out that this interface is left unspecified
in Release 2000, adding to uncertainties in interoperability of vendor equipment. Moreover,
future standardisation of an Iub-equivalent interface for the GERAN will be impacted adversely.
Some problems that were identified with the placement of the PCU at the BSC in Section 3 are
resurrected. For example, the transmission of MAC frames across the BTS-to-BSC interface and
subsequently over the Iur will require proper dimensioning of the transmission network and close
synchronisation with the CCU on the target cell. It seems irregular that the benefits of moving the
PCU to the BTS will then be countered by implementing user plane transmission over the Iur-g
interface.

3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

It is also strongly felt that implementation of the RLC/MAC layer at the BSC will adversely
affect possible future evolution of the standard that may require fast resource allocation towards
the MS.
Moreover, there is no need for simultaneous transmission of information towards two base
stations, since TDMA systems have no need for soft handover. Also, current packet forwarding
of GTP-U packets are fully capable of providing low-latency switching of bearers during
handover. It is reiterated that all handovers in the GERAN are going to be hard-handovers.
Thus, there is no need to provide functionality that is irrelevant for the GERAN.
In short, the debate regarding specification of an Iur-g for the user and control plane is one
between strict UTRAN conformance and GERAN radio link optimisation. It is felt that there
should be no compromise on radio link issues. As will be shown in the next section, we
recommend that compromise be stopped at specifying a control plane interface alone.

3.3

What about the Control Plane?

Ericsson believe it is of some advantage to have an RNSAP equivalent (subset of the UTRAN
RNSAP) in the GERAN within the BSC. The alternative would be to enhance RANAP
procedures to incorporate functionality corresponding to BSC relocation and handover, an
approach would entail changes to the Iu interface. Changes to the Iu interface should be avoided
unless it is in the common evolution interests of the GERAN and the UTRAN. The specification
of an Iur-g for control plane operation will enable the duration of a handover to be reduced,
although we believe that the handover interruption will mostly be governed by the Physical
channel.
Release 99 of the UMTS specification has a problem with cell update in the absence of an Iur
when the UE has no dedicated channels towards the network. This deficiency is being corrected
in Release 2000, and will be available for use by the GERAN.
In this respect, the benefits of alignment with the UTRAN cannot be ignored. Therefore, Ericsson
have no objection to specification of an Iur-g interface for the Control Plane. It is desirable that
this interface be derived from the Iur interface as specified for the UTRAN.

4 Conclusion
This document has argued against specifying Iur-g functionality for the user plane based on the
following factors:
1. Alignment with UTRAN must not be an overriding factor in specification of the GERAN
internal architecture. Such alignment should be restricted to avoiding or minimising changes
to core network interfaces.
2. The GERAN Release 99 allows implementation of the PCU at various functional
components such as the BTS, BSC. Specification of the Iur-g for the user plane will make it
impossible to consider implementation of the PCU at the BTS. There are compelling reasons
to retain the viability of that option.

3GPP TSG GERAN Adhoc

Mnchen, Germany

Tdoc GAHW-000048
Agenda item 6.1.2

October 9th 13th, 2000

Source: Ericsson

3. The specification of a control plane interface for Iur-g addresses all known issues regarding
efficient relocation of mobile stations across various network domains. Limiting the
specification of the Iur-g to control plane functionality also has advantages for the future
evolution of the GERAN network.
In conclusion, we reiterate that there is no need for specifying user-plane frames across the Iur-g.
It is acceptable that the Iur-g interface allows control plane transport through RNSAP (or a subset
of RNSAP as defined in UTRAN).

References
[1]. 3G.PP, General Packet Radio Service; Service Description; Stage 2 (Release 1999), 3G.PP
23.060, April 2000.
[2]. 3G.PP, UTRAN Iur Interface; General Aspects and Principles, 3G TS 25.420, January
2000.
[3]. 3G.PP, UTRAN Overall Description, 3G.TS 25.401 v3.1.0, January 2000.
[4] Alcatel, Use of Iur and Iu-ps interfaces Handovers, 3G.PP Adhoc on GERAN TDOC 2g00113.
[5] Joint Ericsson/Nokia/Alcatel handover contribution to RAN3, to be submitted.