With the ongoing standardisation of 3GPP long term evolution (LTE or E-UTRAN) and WiMAX (IEEE802.16) air interfaces, in addition to existing standards (GSM/GPRS and UMTS) an increasing diversity of radio access technologies (RATs) will be present in future, Operators will require sophisticated mobility mechanisms to simultaneously steer user to appropriates RATs while also spreading load across the different technologies.
In today's wireless systems like GSM/GPRS or UMTS, typically UE-controlled cell reselection algorithms currently operate independently of any subscriber-specific or service considerations [for UMTS e.g. in 3GPP TS 25.304]. All UEs are handled in the same way based on parameter broadcast on the BCCH [for UMTS e.g. in 3GPP TS 25.331], and hence follow the same cell reselection strategies. Similar as for the idle mode the decision criteria for both mobility related and radio resource related decisions are independent from any subscriber or user type information. So in general the decisions is based on terminal capabilities and to some extend on current service usage or specific information provided by the CN during the service establishment (e.g. so-called “service based handover” which gives an indication from the CN to the RAN that a certain bearer might be handed over to a specific RAT or not). This all relates for the demand of providing similar service equally for all users of the mobile system.
With the advent of a demand for increased datarates and the cost reduction implied by specific tariffs of the mobile operators an increasing demand is foreseen for user as well as service differentiation for example in mobility decisions. Qualifying data by means of Quality of Service (QoS) can provide some means to differentiate the subscribers but mobility related decisions (especially while being in idle mode) can't reliably be taken based on this kind of information designed for differentiating traffic of different services using prioritised packet delivery rather than independent tailored to control mobility based upon the type of user.
3GPP have already specified access control classes to restrict access to mobile networks to a set of subscribers belonging to a set of access control classes during severe network congestion. It is proposed that a similar kind of user differentiation is available within the RAN for mobility decisions so that users can be spread appropriately across RATs.
In addition to load distribution across RATs, similar mechanisms may also be required to distribute load across different carriers of different bandwidths on the same RAT.
It is proposed to allow a procedure where an entity of the CN (e.g. aGW in case of SAE/LTE) informs the radio access network (e.g. the eNB in case of LTE/SAE) on registration of a UE or transition from LTE_IDLE to LTE_ACTIVE state about subscriber specific information which in turn should be considered in the radio access network for mobility and radio resource management decisions, both in idle and active mode. The information is preferably defined as an integer number which is associated with the specific handling of the UE defined by a set of rules. These rules will be defined locally in a eNB (or any other involved node) by means of configuration files (e.g. using mainstream dataformats like XML, etc) and will be applied by the eNB during the mobility and radio resource management.
The signalling from the CN (200) to the RAN (201) at registration of a UE or during the transition from LTE_IDLE to LTE_ACTIVE state (see
The coding of the information element should flexible enough to allow its application to a wide range of mobility applications. To allow sufficient granularity it is recommended that at least 16 classes are defined,
One example of the use of the subscriber type field for load balancing between UMTS and LTE RATs is shown in
Some services demanding especially-high data rates or minimum latency are handled more appropriately on the more higher performing LTE RAT, independent of subscriber type. However, the majority of services are well handled on both RATs, and the RAT selection for these is predominantly based upon subscriber type. In this example, 8 classes of subscriber type are shown (number restricted for illustrative purposed only), and for 3 subscriber types, most services are selected to be handled on the UMTS rather than the LTE RAT. Making subscriber type the dominant criterion rather than service reduces the amount of inter-RAT mobility triggered by different service use, and also allows a more consistent RAT selection policy in IDLE and ACTIVE modes (
The number of subscriber type classes selected for handling on the UMTS or LTE RATS can be made dependent on the load levels in both RATs. In the case of low LTE load, it is beneficial to handle all users on the better performing LTE RAT. At higher loads, it is possible to alter the number of subscriber type classes directed to the different RATs depending upon the relative load on the two RATs. Another example of the subscriber type information used in mobility decisions of a cellular network is the case of network sharing or national roaming. In such a case typically on RAT (for example LTE) is shared among different mobile operators while the technologies are not shared to the legacy reasons (e.g. UMTS or GSM). Typically the operator is interested getting the own subscriber back the the own network whenever possible. E.g. if the coverage of the shared LTE network is left then the own subscriber should be preferably handed over to the right target network though both might fulfil the requirements for a HO target in terms of radio conditions. In such a case a “subscriber type” indication received form the CN could be used to bring the correct subscriber in the correct network. In today implementations this requirement can only be fulfilled by the analysis of an operator specific identity available in the RAN (namely the IMSI available in the RNC in UMTS, but not in the BSC of GSM networks). Having a RRM rule defined in the decisions nodes for always performing a handover of subscriber type X (from PLMN B) back to PLMN B whenever possible would be very flexible and could be enhanced/changed depending on any subscription information available in the CN without requiring any change to existing RAN implementations. Also security would benefit for the fact that no subscriber specific information is available in certain nodes of a network which might be vulnerable (e.g. the complete IMSI of a subscriber which can identify his identity). Having only an abstract “subscriber type” information and a defined “handling rule” available would ensure the subscribers confidentiality in all cases.
Another application for the usage of a “subscriber type” information could be related to the specific usage conditions of a terminal in a cellular network. E.g. today in all cellular network that decision functions in the network/RAN do not have any information how a specific terminal is used. E.g. it is not possible for the network with simple means to detect e.g. if a terminal is a stationary device such as a part of a machine or a wireless gateway router etc. The only means today to get this information is either to introduction of a specific signalling or the usage of radio measurements to determine if a terminal is stationary or not. Specifically the operation of the network with stationary wireless gateway routers (providing access of small home or office networks wireless to the internet) as well as stationary machine-to-machine devices (gas/water counter) could benefit for the additional information about the fact that the device is neither moving nor has strict power constrains as it is typically connected to a fixed power supply: the network can take specific actions for such devices it would not take for the majority of mobile devices in the cellular network. One example could be to apply a specific timer for the LTE_ACTIVE to LTE_IDLE state transitions (which is either done to free resources or to put the device in state where less power is consumed) or it could completely disable any measurements for mobility to be applied by the device as it would never need to perform a handover to a different cell. The above listed examples are not exclusive, one can consider even more scenarios where such information about the subscriber type could be beneficial.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
10 2007 002 483.7 | Jan 2007 | DE | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP08/00027 | 1/4/2008 | WO | 00 | 11/11/2009 |