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
microwave
is just a big pipe

you get out what you put in

“I canna change the laws o’ physics captain”
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

How can you get more data through the pipe?
how do you get more data
through the pipe?

5 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

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

Get acan
How Bigger
you Pipe!
get a bigger pipe!
get more data through the pipe?

7 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

Use Wider Channels

6 GHz 70-90 GHz

11 GHz
30 MHz
40 MHz
5 GHz
60 GHz

18 GHz 250 MHz

80 MHz
23 GHz
50 MHz

8 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

use more efficient schemes
Get acan
How Bigger
you Pipe!
get more data through the pipe?

to pack more data into the pipe

9 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

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

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

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

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

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

‘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

use more than one pipe
Use more than one pipe

16 AVIAT NETWORKS | NOVEMBER 2011

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

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

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
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

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

Ethernet Frame Header Optimization

•  Inter-frame Gap
and Preamble
Removal

•  MAC Header
Compression

22 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Throughput Improvement

23 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

Header Suppression Throughput Improvement
IFG  &  Preamble    
Standard  Frame   IFG  &  Preamble  
Frame   &  MAC  header  
Size  
Frame   Frame   Frame  
Mbps   Mbps   Increase   Mbps   Increase  
Space   Space   Space  

64   84   76.2   68   94.1   24%   58   110.3   45%  

128   148   86.5   132   97.0   12%   122   104.9   21%  

260   280   92.9   264   98.5   6%   254   102.4   10%  

512   522   96.2   516   99.2   3%   506   101.2   5%  

1518   1538   98.7   1522   99.7   1%   1512   100.4   2%  

24 AVIAT NETWORKS | APRIL 2012

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

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

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

IN CONCLUSION
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
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

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

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

AVIATNETWORKS.COM