Dual Latency

All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2006, #####
Dual latency discussion (ADSL2+)

All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2007 2 | UPC DSL technology | July 2007
Index
1. Impulse noise and its protection
2. Problem statement and dual latency solution
3. Customer examples
4. Implementation complexities and problems
5. Performance (HSI/video/VoIP/gaming)
6. Final conclusion
7. Artificial noise

1
Impulse noise and its protection
Impulse noise problem
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Time [DMT Symbols]
V
o
l
t
a
g
e

o
n

1
0
0

O
h
m
s

[
v
o
l
t
s
]
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x 10
-3
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Neon 6
Neon lamps and economic lamps:
e.g. turn on of TL lamp
Longest burst observed
28 DMT symbols
0.2 DMT symbols
ERRORS
INP & Delay in ADSL2+
Protection (INP) = combination of interleaving and RS overhead.

Complex formula for data rate - can be simplified to
INP bigger => net data rate smaller
Max delay smaller => net data rate smaller

Big issue both driving factors (more protection, less delay)
drive to less net data rate

maximum achievable bit rate also capped by interleaver memory size and
maximum 1/S
Net_data_rate/Total_data_rate = 1-(INP / (2 delay[ms]))
2
Problem statement and dual latency
solution
Problem statement
What is the optimal INP_min/max_Delay
combination for triple play (ADSL2+) with single
latency?
Is there even a reasonable solution?

As a consequence, is dual latency really
needed or not?
3
Customer examples
Dual latency
In practice
all 3-play deployment today using ALU equipment is single latency (on
ADSLx and VDSL2)
operators that initially put dual latency as a requirement finally decided to deploy
single latency after consideration of all aspects

lack of CPE support for dual latency today ; no dual latency IOP today
no IOP tests have been done at UNH plugfests with dual latency

All 3-play over xDSL using ALU equipment is offered successfully without dual
latency today
INP_min/delay_max for triple play in real life
Examples (information has been summarized because of confidentiality):

VDSL2 customers: INP ranges from INP=1 to INP=2 with delay=8ms and some
type of higher layer retransmission is used in all (or most of the) cases

ADSL2+ customers: INP ranges from INP=1 to INP=4 with delay=8ms in all
cases
one of the customers uses INP=1, delay=8ms for both upstream and downstream
with no higher layer retransmission
Only one of the customers uses higher layer retransmission with settings
INP=2,delay=8ms downstream

4
Implementation complexities and problems
Implementation complexities and problems (1)
Need for selection mechanism to associate incoming traffic with a bearer on
DSL line
Dual latency is standardized at the physical layer but there is no correct standard
specification on how the traffic should be split or aggregated above these
interfaces and this can result in interoperability and other deployment issues.
If Dynamic Rate Repartitioning (DRR) is not well defined, there is no bandwidth
sharing between bearers, meaning that bandwidth is wasted if one of the services
is not being used.

Dual latency risks big interoperability issues

for each DSL line, different queues may be required per bearer if different QoS
classes are mixed over same bearer. Also, a scheduler resource or instance is
required per bearer on each DSL line (complexity of scheduler depends on number
of service types that can be mixed on single bearer).

The most attractive solution (QOS model) consists in associating each of the QOS
queues to one of both latency channels. This way the selection of the QOS queue
(based on Priority bit) automatically results in the selection of the latency channel
BUT..
..to offer a QoS-based solution, we would need:
agreements from the CPE suppliers to adopt the same model.
Most ATM CPE's are expected to use separate PVC's across the different latency
channels.
confidence that the Priority bits are well controlled through the network.
confirmation that such implementation suits the different customers.
the acceptance of or a solution to the technically feasible but controversial
implementation for ATM where a PVC channel can by principle not be split on two
bearers.

Dual latency puts end-to-end requirements

to ensure that different services are mapped on proper latency bearers
Each bearer has to be addressable on the DSL line
DSL modem ASICs and interface between network processor and DSL modem ASICs
need to support a double number of physical port addresses
Number of objects to be managed doubles
multiple bearers on a same DSL line have to be managed (configuration, fault and
performance mgmt) as different physical lines
with some dependencies between managed objects (bearers), e.g. maximum
aggregate bandwidth on a physical DSL line determines possible provisioning of
bandwidth on each of its bearers

Dual latency increases operational complexity
5
Performance (HSI/video/VoIP/gaming)
ALU investigation
Performance summary
Service Packet loss sensitivity Delay sensitivity
Video without correction at
higher layers
High
packet loss s 10
7
to 10
9

Very low
(dejittering buffer of seconds)
Video with correction at higher
layers
Low
packet loss s5%
Very low
(dejittering buffer of seconds)
Web browsing Medium
packet loss s0.1%
High (if RTT is low)
<<RTT
File download Medium
packet loss s0.1%
Medium (if RTT is low)
<<RTT
VoIP Low
few % packet loss acceptable
Medium
(total budget is 150 ms but
requirements for DSL may be
order less)
Multiplayer shooting game Low
few % packet loss acceptable
Medium/high
(total budget is 100 ms but
user perception may require
low delay)
MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer
Online Games)
Low
packet loss s10%
Performance conclusion
guaranteed correction of 2 successively corrupted DMT symbols (INP=2)
improves video quality and large file downloads in environments with strong
impulse noise
medium interleaving delay (8 ms) is fine for gaming, VoIP and web browsing
(HTTP)
From performance point of view, single latency is
enough
INP=2 in combination with delay of 8 ms is good combination for
downstream.
good Reed Solomon efficiency (R/N = 1/8)
upstream delay and INP values can be less than for downstream

But, is the data rate in this case sufficient for triple
play?
Dual latency
Example: maximum achievable bit rates in function of INP & Delay
26
Upper DS performance limits for Amd1 ADSL2+ standard
4024 8112 14455 22244 26042 27809 29556 63
4024 8112 14455 22244 26042 27809 29556 32
4024 8112 14455 22244 26042 27809 29556 16
0 8112 14455 22244 26042 27809 29556 8
0 0 7616 21092 25718 27612 29556 4
0 0 0 7616 20928 25718 29556 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 29556 1
16 8 4 2 1 0.5 0
INP_min
d
e
l
a
y
_
m
a
x

(
m
s
)

CPE has to be compliant !
= INP 2, 8 ms delay
Limitations: (1/S)
max
=16, D
max
=511, Max Interleaver Memory=16k
Dual latency
32
Upper DS performance limits for amd.3 ADSL2+ standard
5393 10844 19092 24703 27217 28394 29556 63
5393 10844 19092 24703 27217 28394 29556 32
4024 10844 19092 24703 27217 28394 29556 16
0 8112 19092 24703 27217 28394 29556 8
0 0 7616 21092 25718 27612 29556 4
0 0 0 7616 20928 25718 29556 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 29556 1
16 8 4 2 1 0.5 0
INP_min
d
e
l
a
y
_
m
a
x

(
m
s
)

CPE has to be compliant !
Limitations: (1/S)
max
=16, D
max
=511, Max Interleaver Memory=24k
= INP 2, 8 ms delay
Result with CT562plus
INP=2 with Delay 16/8/4ms vs INP=0/Delay=16ms
Result with ST716
INP=2 with Delay 16/8ms vs INP=0/Delay=16ms
6
Final conclusion
Final conclusion
Dual latency is not needed in the current triple
play (ADSL2+) scenario
Single latency performance is guaranteed with INP=2 and
max_delay = 8 ms
Single latency data rate is enough to deploy triple play
Other operators deploying triple play successfully with single
latency

Dual latency (if implemented) increases
dramatically the interop and operational
complexity of the solution, leading to other type
of errors/limitations/compromises.

7
Artificial noise
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 0:00
1
st
Noise increase
(neighbor modem)
2nd Noise increase
(strong radio signal)
Service interruptions:
resyncs result in minutes
of downtime
Service degradation:
lower bandwidth due to
higher noise
B
a
n
d
w
i
d
t
h

(
M
b
p
s
)

time
Line instability cause and visible effects
A closer look at a DSL line during prime time (8pm-midnight):
noise
stable DSL video affected by
packet loss
Excessive transmission errors Spontaneous DSL line resynchronizations
stable DSL video affected by
line resync
Stabilizing an unstable line with Artificial/Virtual Noise
Original situation high bandwidth but unstable
Traditional solution: High Noise Margin stable but reduced bandwidth
The Alcatel-Lucent solution: Artificial/Virtual Noise stable and high bandwidth
B
a
n
d
w
i
d
t
h

(
M
b
p
s
)

time
noise
noise
noise
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 0:00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 0:00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 0:00

stable @
11.6 Mb/s
stable @
4.7 Mb/s
2 resync
stable @ 9.7 Mb/s
Margin

frequencies (v)
Receiver Noise
Artificial Noise (ADSL) / Virtual Noise (VDSL)
frequencies (v)
Margin Margin
Receiver Noise
Artificial /
Virtual
Noise
resyncs
Unstable line
Service interruptions
Artificial/Virtual noise guarantees DSL stability whilst keeping Noise Margin low
for maximum bandwidth availability
Neighbour switches
on DSL modem,
generating crosstalk
Dynamic noise
(crosstalk) exceeds
configured margin
Noise margin adapts
to accomodate virtual
noise
Dynamic noise will not
exceed noise margin
(on top of A/V noise)
no resync
Noise margin can
remain low, for max.
bandwidth
No resyncs
Stable line
No interruptions
P
S
D

(
d
B
m
/
H
z
)

P
S
D

(
d
B
m
/
H
z
)

Artificial Noise / Virtual Noise field results
Transmission errors (CVs)
2
~3 day monitoring
>3500
~1 day monitoring
problem line
3500 errors/day
14.9Mbps
Multiple resyncs
Same line with Artificial Noise
<1 error/day
12.0Mbps
No resyncs
Preliminary field results are excellent

StableDSL R1.0
ADSL Artificial Noise
Unique Alcatel-Lucent solution
invented by ALU patent pending
Works with all deployed CPEs

VDSL Virtual Noise
Invented by ALU patent pending
Included in standard (optional)
4
8
p

V
D
S
L
2

4
8
p

M
u
l
t
i
-
D
S
L

Artificial/Virtual noise in ISAM Network Analyzer
Alcatel-Lucent consultancy groups help operators stabilize their lines
1 2
3
Premium Package never included in base price
DSL line troubleshooting
Automated Artificial / Virtual Noise
configuration
Automated line analysis
Access Network Design
& Transformation (AND&T)
Logical and physical network design:
introduction of new DSL flavours
introduction of new Triple Play services
Access Network Operations
Optimizations (ANOO)
Operational optimization of DSL networks:
Troubleshooting & Tuning of networks
5520 AMS, 5580 HNM and 5530 NA
StableDSL R1.0 : Practical Information
Availability: today
Virtual Noise: ISAM R3.1 ETSI, Artificial Noise: ISAM R3.3 (DR5 Aug07)
Network Analyser support: AN/VN analysis R5.2 (Jul07)

Virtual/Artificial noise should be implemented independently of the
INP/Delay settings
Helps with resynchronizations and line stability
Helps in conditions of high repetitive noise
Backup
Impulse noise protection
Reed Solomon plus interleaving
Message
vector
Ctrl
Data to be transmitted
Transmitted Data
Bloc 0 Bloc 1 Bloc 2
Ctrl Correction Ctrl Correction Ctrl Correction Ctrl Correction Ctrl Correction
Bloc 3 Bloc 4
Bloc 0 Bloc 1 Bloc 2 Bloc 3
Burst errors
6 lost bytes
1 Byte error
per bloc!
Impulse Noise Protection (INP) in ADSL2(+)
How much of the DMT symbol is protected?
Protection via Reed Solomon and extended via interleaving

Which parameters influence the INP
S = # DMT symbols per RS word
D = interleaving depth (# of combined RS words used)
N = Number of bytes per RS word (1 255 bytes)
R = Number of RS overhead bytes (0 16 bytes)
(ms) delay
4
D S
=
( )
|
.
|
\
|
=
N
R
D S 0,5 INP
Step 1: protection for 1RS / 1DMT symbol
NO interleaving introduced
R=overhead bytes N=Total bytes
K= payload bytes
Correction on payload = R/2

What part of the DMT symbol is protected?
Number of correctable bytes over number of bytes in DMT symbol
INP = DMT protection = payload correction / N = R / (2xN)
K R
DMT symbol
Assume 1 RS word / 4 DMT symbols & NO interleaving
S = # DMT symbols per RS word = 4
We have seen before that RS correction = R/2

How much of the DMT symbol is protected?
RS word is now spread over 4 DMT symbols
With R=16 you have 8 correctable bytes over 4 DMT symbols

INP = (# correctable bytes) / (#bytes in a DMT symbol)=
= (R/2) / (N/S) = (S x R) /( 2 x N)
INP increases with a factor S
Step 2: protection for 1RS / S DMT symbols
DMT DMT
RS
DMT DMT
...
1 2 3 4 5 6
Step 3: introducing interleaving
Correction has improved by a factor D
Errorred bytes are spread over D RS words
Payload correction = D x R/2

DMT protection has as such also increased
= # correctable bytes / N = (DxR)/(2xN)
Buffer
D
D = interleaving depth
N = number of bytes per RS word
incoming
outgoing
Max. 255
Bytes
..
N
B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 Bx Bx Bx Bx
Bz Bz BN BN BN BN
...
Assume 1 interleaved RS word / DMT symbol
Size N
Max. 64
Step 4: all together
RS introduces a correction = R/2
RS correction presented by parameter R

Interleaving introduces an improvement on the number of correctable bytes
Interleaving represented by parameter D

S factor introduces an impact on the number of correctable bytes per DMT
symbol
INP = (S x # correctable bytes) / N
= S x R x D / (2 x N)

conclusions
INP = S x D x R / 2 x N
How to increase the INP
Increase S > increases the introduced delay
Increase D > increases the introduced delay
Increase R > Decreases the available bitrate
Decrease N > Decreases the available bitrate

When configuring a DSL port a max delay needs to be given and a minimum INP
This will impact the max. possible bitrate

Reed Solomon plus interleaving
Message
vector
Check
bytes
Data to be transmitted
Transmitted Data
RS word 0 RS word 1 RS word 2
Received Data
Check Correction
RS word 3 RS word 4
RS word 3
1 Byte
error
per bloc!
1 DMT symbol in error:
5 lost bytes
Check Correction Check Correction Check Correction Check Correction
D=31
N=q*I=15
K=9
R=6
I=5
S=5/15
RS word 4
RS word 0 RS word 1 RS word 2
INP & Delay in VDSL2
Protection (INP) = combination of interleaving depth and RS overhead.

Complex formula for data rate - can be simplified to
_ _ 2 _
1
_ _ _
n n
n
n n s
total data rate INP min
r
net data rate delay max f
= ~ +
delay_max
n
is in milliseconds

f
s
is the data symbol rate in ksymbols/s
INP_min bigger => net data rate smaller
Max delay smaller => net data rate smaller

Big issue both driving factors (more protection, less delay)
drive to less net data rate
HSI performance
HSI performance is determined by
packet loss due to stationary and impulsive noise
if packet loss is too high, TCP goes in congestion avoidance too often
use interleaved mode rather than fast mode
file size
TCP does not get out of slow start before file transfer is over
use fast mode rather than interleaved mode
overall: interleaved is preferred for file download (on
noisy lines), fast is better for web browsing (on very high
capacity XDSL lines)

Video performance
Video quality is determined by
bit rate
use a high enough video bit rate (>1.5 Mb/s for SDTV, >8Mb/s for HDTV)
use a state-of-the-art codec (e.g. H.264)
packet loss
video is very sensitive to packet loss
every lost packet is visible when MPEG-Transport Stream is used
different (new) transport mechanisms exist that may offer better
robustness (less visual disturbance) against packet loss
use interleaved mode to protect against packet loss
use FEC on packets or a retransmission scheme to protect against remaining packet
loss
Video can tolerate some delay
additional DSL bit pipe delay will have almost no impact on overall zapping time
overall: interleaved is recommended but can work in
fast mode too with FEC or retransmission at packet level

VoIP performance
Voice quality is determined by
end-to-end delay
total budget is 150ms without any drop in quality and even 400ms if a slight loss in
interactivity is allowed; however, XDSL line requirement will be something less
fast mode is fine; but additional delay of interleaved mode (e.g. 8 or 16 ms) is not
dramatic
packet loss
tolerable amount of packet loss is a few percent
interleaved mode is fine; but normally also no problem in fast mode
overall: slight preference for (medium) interleaved
mode but works fine in fast mode too

Gaming performance
Gaming performance is determined by
(twice) client-server delay (Ping time)
an additional 60-80ms delay (over the adversarys) seems to negatively impact
gaming performance
fast mode is fine; but additional delay of interleaved mode (e.g. 8 or 16 ms) is not
dramatic
packet loss
does not seem to be crucial
no problem in interleaved and fast mode
overall: slight preference for fast mode but works fine in
(medium) interleaved mode too
Dual latency
Example: maximum achievable bit rates in function of INP & Delay (Amd 1)
x 4000 symbols/sec = bps
Total Data Rate (bits/symbol)
Increasing DSL stability for IPTV StableDSL R1.0
DSL line stability is critical
E
r
r
o
r
s

p
e
r

d
a
y

1
10
100
1000
IPTV Errors visible
>> complaints
Internet
Errors hardly visible
CLEC
HSI/ADSL2+
ILEC
HSI/ADSL
ILEC
IPTV/ADSL2+
CLEC
IPTV/ADSL2+
ILEC
HSI(512k)/ADSL
Up to 25% of DSL lines potentially unstable
Stable lines
Potentially unstable: crosstalk
Solution: Artificial/Virtual noise
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

More complaints

Less qualifying lines

Lower take-up rate/higher churn
Difference with VDSL2
Difference with VDSL2
Everything stated remains exactly the same
but..
Due to different technology, achievable bit rates are different than
in ADSL2+ (see next slides)

VDSL2 PHY fault correction
Alcatel VDSL2 implementation allows independent configuration of INP and
delay on per port basis
max interleaving Delay can be configured in steps of 1ms in range of 0 to 63
ms (delay >2ms for interleaved path)
min INP can be configured in steps of 0.1 DMT symbol in range of 0 to 16
DMT symbols
max achievable bit rate is function of combined settings for INP and delay

Example: downstream for profile 12a/b (simulation with estimated null loop
performance
Throughput
Delay
Error
Correction (INP)
BALANCE
2 4 8 16
2 13056 0 0 0
4 37632 13056 0 0
8 60242 37632 13056 0
16 60242 39168 24084 13056
32 60242 39168 24084 13645
INP_min
delay_max
(ms)
Net Data Rates
Note: The bit rates presented in the table are upper limits which might not be practical or feasible in
typical VDSL2 deployment scenarios.
Dual latency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TP150 loop length [m]
b
i
t

r
a
t
e

[
M
b
/
s
]
fast down
fast up
INP=2, delay=8ms down
INP=2, delay=8ms up
INP=4, delay=16ms up
INP=8, delay=63ms up
NVLT-A
measurement
conditions
NVLT-A (R3.2)
profile 12a
PSD mask: 998-M2x-A
-140 dBm/Hz AWGN
loop TP150

Dual Latency

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dual Latency

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2006, #####

Dual latency discussion (ADSL2+)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai