三星《5G SA架构报告》技术白皮书.pdf
1.1MB 10下载 590浏览 暂无评分
1
Technical
White
Paper
5G
Standalone
Architecture
Janua
ry
2021
2
Contents
03
04
09
12
16
20
21
Introduction
NR
Architecture
Overview
Option
2
Option
3/3a/3x
Option
4/4a
Option
5
Option
7/7a/7x
Non-Standalone
vs.
Standalone
Key
Drivers
for
5G
SA
Migration
Path
for
5G
SA
Direct
Migration
Path
to
Option
2
Migration
Path
to
Option
2
via
Option
3
Family
Considerations
in
NR
SA
Coverage
Latency
Mobility
Bands
Utilization
Voice
Service
Summary
Abbreviations
References
3
Introduction
LTE
mobile
technology
has
changed
our
lifestyles
significantly
with
high
data
rates
and
low
latency.
With
the
diverse
services
and
requirements
demanded
from
today's
mobile
industry,
however,
LTE
by
itself
is
not
capable
of
handling
the
necessary
throughput,
latency
and
reliability.
Compared
to
LTE,
5G
enables
much
higher
data
rates
and
ultra-low
latency
by
using
wide
spectrum
of
high-frequency
bands
and
advanced
networking
technology.
5G
targets
twenty
times
higher
data
rates
and
much
shorter
latency
than
LTE.
As
a
result,
more
reliable
transmissions
and
higher
UE
connection
density
will
be
possible
in
the
5G
network
.
Key
comparisons
between
4G
and
5G
have
been
drawn
in
Table
1
[1].
Table
1.
Comparison
between
4G
and
5G
Item
4G
5G
Peak
Data
Rate
1
Gbps
(DL)
20
Gbps
(DL)
User
Experienced
Data
Rate
10
Mbps
100
Mbps
Spectrum
Efficiency
-
X3
Areal
Traffic
Capacity
0.1
Mbps/m
2
10
Mbps/m
2
Latency
10ms
1ms
Connection
Density
100,000/km
2
1,000,000/km
2
Network
Energy
Efficiency
-
X1
00
Mobility
350km/h
500km/h
Bandwidth
U
p
to
20
MHz
Up
to
1
GHz
A
wide
range
of
frequency
bands
are
required
for
5G
to
provide
high
speed
data
transmissions.
The
5G
frequency
bands
can
be
divided
into
three
categories:
low-band,
mid-band
and
high-band.
The
l
ow-band
uses
a
frequency
range
below
1
GHz,
similar
to
that
of
LTE.
The
m
id-band
ranges
from
1GHz
to
6GHz
and
has
balanced
service
coverage
and
capacity
compared
to
the
low-band
and
the
high-band.
The
high-band,
such
as
mmWave,
sits
above
24GHz
and
provides
the
fastest
speeds
and
tremendous
capacity,
as
a
result
of
it
s
large
bandwidth,
but
is
smaller
in
coverage
range
due
to
its
low
penetration
rate.
Therefore,
an
operator
needs
to
weigh
in
the
pros
and
cons
of
the
different
spectrums
to
determine
whether
they
are
feasible
options
for
initial
use
cases,
as
well
as
to
decide
whether
or
not
they
are
scalable
for
future
use
cases
.
Figure
1
shows
the
differences
among
5G
frequency
bands
in
terms
of
capacity
and
coverage.
Due
to
the
coverage
characteristics
of
the
5G
frequency
bands,
high-bands
are
suitable
for
dense
urban
areas,
mid-bands
for
metropolitan
areas
,
and
low-bands
for
national
wide
coverage.
The
3rd
Generation
Partnership
Project
(3GPP)
introduces
two
primary
architecture
options
for
5G
deployment
from
LTE:
Non-Standalone
(NSA)
and
Standalone
(SA).
NSA
enables
rapid
5G
service
deployment
with
minimum
investment
by
leveraging
the
existing
LTE
infrastructures.
SA
consists
of
a
single
Radio
Access
Technology
(RAT)
,
meaning
it
is
possible
to
provide
full
5G
enhancements
designed
to
work
only
in
the
5G
New
Radio
(
NR)
SA
low-band
Coverage
Capacity
mid-band
high-
band
Illustrated
comparison
per
5G
bands
4
architecture.
As
mentioned
above,
an
operator
needs
to
carefully
decide
which
5G
deployment
option
best
suits
its
network
deployment
scenario
by
considering
a
number
of
factors.
For
example,
NSA
may
be
the
most
sensible
option
for
a
fast
5G
deployment
from
a
cost
perspective
since
it
leverag
es
legacy
LTE
networks
.
However,
the
NSA
deployment
option
is
limited
in
that
it
can't
fully
support
all
the
5G-specific
services,
such
as,
URLLC
and
network
slicing.
In
this
document,
NR
architecture
options
,
5G
key
services,
5G
SA
migration
path
and
operating
considerations
in
NR
SA
will
be
presented.
NR
Architecture
Overview
The
3GPP
introduces
six
architecture
options
for
NR
deployment
as
shown
in
Figure
2.
These
architecture
options
are
divided
into
two
deployment
scenarios:
SA
and
NSA
[2
][3]
.
The
SA
provides
NR
service
by
using
a
single
RAT
,
whereas
the
NSA
enables
NR
deployment
by
utilizing
the
existing
LTE
systems
.
Options
1,
2
and
5
belong
to
the
SA
category,
while
options
3,
4
and
7
belong
to
the
NSA
category.
However,
since
option
1
is
a
legacy
LTE
system,
in
which
an
E-UTRAN
NodeB
(eNB)
is
connected
to
an
Evolved
Packet
Core
(EPC),
also
referred
to
as
4G
Core
Network
(CN),
it
is
not
considered
when
dealing
with
NR
deployment
scenarios.
gNB
5
GC
Opt
.
2
eNB
EPC
Opt.
1
ng-eNB
5
GC
Opt
.
5
eNB
EPC
Opt.
3
en-gNB
ng-eNB
Opt
.
4
gNB
5
GC
ng-eNB
Opt
.
7
gNB
5
GC
LTE
user
plane
LTE
control
plane
MN
SN
MN
SN
MN
SN
NR
user
plane
NR
control
plane
EN-
DC
NE-
DC
NGEN-
DC
S1-U
S1-C
NG-U
NG-C
S1-U
S1-C
X2-C
X2-U
NG-U
NG-C
NG-U
NG-C
NG-U
NG-C
Xn-C
Xn-U
Xn-C
Xn-U
NR
deployment
architecture
options
5
In
a
NSA
deployment,
Multi-Radio
Dual
Connectivity
(MR-DC)
provides
a
UE
with
simultaneous
connectivity
to
two
different
generation
RAN
nodes
(i.e.,
next
generation
NodeB
(gNB)
and
eNB)
.
Of
the
two
nodes,
one
acts
as
a
Master
Node
(MN)
and
the
other
as
a
Secondary
Node
(SN).
The
MN
is
connected
with
the
SN
and
4G/5G
CN
.
The
SN
can
be
connected
with
the
Core
depending
on
options
[4
].
Generally,
MR-DC
is
categorized
as
shown
in
Table
2.
In
MR-DC,
a
UE
connects
with
the
MN/
CN
and
can
communicate
with
SN
via
MN
for
control
plane.
For
user
plane,
a
UE
can
connect
with
either
MN/SN
directly
or
SN
via
MN.
Table
2.
MR-DC
Lists
Lists
Associated
CN
Associated
Option
Note
E-UTRA-NR
Dual
Connectivity
(EN-DC)
EPC
Option
3
eNB
acts
as
an
MN
and
en-gNB
acts
as
a
SN.
NR-E-UTRA
Dual
Connectivity
(NE-DC)
5GC
Option
4
gNB
acts
as
an
MN
and
ng-eNB
acts
as
a
SN
NG-RAN
E-UTRA-NR
Dual
Connectivity
(NGEN-DC)
5GC
Option
7
ng-eNB
acts
as
an
MN
and
gNB
acts
as
a
SN
NR-NR
Dual
Connectivity
(NR-DC)
5GC
Option
2
One
gNB
acts
as
an
MN
and
another
gNB
acts
as
a
SN
NOTE
en-gNB
represents
a
gNB
that
can
connect
with
EPC
and
eNB.
An
ng-eNB
stands
for
enhanced
LTE
(eLTE)
eNB
which
can
communicate
with
5G
Core
(5GC)
and
gNB
.
en-gNB
provides
NR
control/user
plane
protocol
terminations
towards
the
UE,
while
ng-eNB
provides
LTE
control/user
plane
protocol
terminations
towards
the
UE.
Option
2
Option
2
is
a
NR
SA
option,
in
which
the
gNB
is
connected
to
the
5GC.
This
NR
SA
option
is
suitable
for
greenfield
5G
operators
.
The
gNB
can
communicate
with
UEs
without
the
help
of
a
legacy
network.
This
option
introduce
s
both
5GC
and
RAN
from
day
one
and
is
the
ultimate
goal
of
5G
migration
paths.
It
can
fully
support
new
5G
services
including
enhanced
Mobile
Broadband
(eMBB)
,
massive
Machine-Type
Communication
(mMTC),
Ultra-
Reliable
Low-Latency
Communication
(URLLC)
and
network
slicing.
Since
dual
connectivity
is
not
a
mandatory
requirement
for
this
option,
it
requires
less
workload
when
upgrading
an
eNB
for
interworking
with
the
NR
system.
This
option
will
be
discussed
in
more
detail
in
the
migration
chapter
that
follows.
Option
3/3a/3x
Option
3
family
is
a
NSA
option,
in
which
the
en-gNB
is
deployed
in
the
LTE
network
and
thus
does
not
need
a
5GC.
In
this
option
5G
services
are
deployed
using
the
EN-DC
with
the
LTE
as
MN
and
the
NR
as
SN.
This
option
may
be
preferred
by
operators
that
already
have
a
nationwide
LTE
network,
because
it
allows
quick
5G
migratio
n
with
minimum
LTE
upgrade
without
5GC.
However,
it
also
has
a
disadvantage,
in
that,
the
scope
of
5G
services
is
restricted
to
RAN
capability
due
to
its
dependency
on
the
legacy
EPC.
For
example,
URLLC
or
network
slicing
is
not
supported.
Therefore,
operators
choosing
option
3
has
a
long
term
task
of
migrating
to
option
2,
if
they
are
to
provide
the
full
extent
of
5G
services
.
This
option
is
further
divided
into
three
types
based
on
the
traffic
split
method
as
shown
in
Figure
3.
热门文档
相关文档