ITU Centres of Excellence for Europe

Mobile Broadband: LTE/LTE-Advanced,

WiMAX and WLAN
Module 2:
IEEE mobile broadband: Mobile WiMAX

Table of contents
2.1. IEEE standards for mobile broadband ...........................................................2
2.2. 3G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e) ................................................................7
2.3. 4G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16m-2011) ....................................................13
2.4. Femto cells in advanced WiMAX systems ...................................................24
2.5. Mobile WiMAX network design and deployment ..........................................29
2.6. WiMAX Interworking with LTE/LTE-Advanced networks..............................35
2.7. Mobile IP, IEEE 802.21 for seamless mobility..............................................39
2.7.1. Mobile IP............................................................................................39
2.7.2. IEEE 802.21.......................................................................................45
2.8. 4G regulation: Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced...............................52
2.9. Business potential of Mobile WiMAX ...........................................................57
References .........................................................................................................62

2.1. IEEE standards for mobile broadband

The biggest challenge in the delivery of broadband services directly to
customers terminals represents the last mile problem. It is solved by various
flavours of wired or wireless access technologies, depending on the population
density, required services and coverage area, existing infrastructure (e.g. cables,
fibres, ducts), configuration of the terrain, etc., but the network dimensioning is
typically carried out based on long-term service requirements. To meet the
demand for higher data rate communications a plethora of last mile technologies
are used and under development based around different communication
standards.
The IEEE Standards Association, a globally recognized standards-setting
body within IEEE, develops consensus standards through an open process that
engages industry and brings together a broad stakeholder community. IEEE
standards set specifications and best practices based on current scientific and
technological knowledge. The IEEE-SA has a portfolio of over 900 active
standards and more than 500 standards under development (for more
information visit the IEEE-SA website).
In a way of the mobile broadband internet, IEEE 802 has developed an
alternative series of wireless Internet standards. The main intent is to bring to
market low-cost products that serve customer needs. Much of the work involves
license-exempt spectrum. This removes the spectrum acquisition costs from the
economic picture. Furthermore, it weakens the concept of a monolithic operator
with strong control over the provided services. Instead, it opens up the market to
enterprise and innovation. IEEE 802 wireless Internet technologies offer data
rates much higher than those provided by even the fixed user case in IMT-2000;
for example, the currently popular IEEE 802.11b standard supports 11 Mb/s,
while the recent IEEE 802.11g speeds up to 54 Mb/s. The basic structures of
IEEE standards are not intended to offer the mobility of IMT-2000 in the sense of
providing services to moving vehicles, although extensions to high mobility are
currently under investigations, and they are not aimed at providing blanket
coverage to users at arbitrary locations within a city.
In this context, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee has developed
three standardization branches:

IEEE 802.16 and IEEE 802.20 wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area
Network) standards will support high-rate broadband-wirelessaccess services to buildings, mostly through rooftop antennas, from
central base stations.

IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN (Local Area Network) standards support
users roaming within homes, office buildings, campuses, hotels,
airports, restaurants, cafes, etc.

and IEEE 802.15 wireless PAN (Personal Area Network) standards
will support short-range links among computers, mobile telephones,
peripherals, and other consumer electronics devices that are worn
or carried.

IEEE 802.11 and 802.15 have worked particularly closely since they both
address unlicensed bands. IEEE 802.16 has historically dealt with licensed
bands and been more independent. However, a new license-exempt project in
IEEE 802.16 now requires it to coordinate more closely with the other two
working groups. The IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless
Access has completed 17 standards projects since 2001 toward the development
and evolution of the IEEE 802.16 WirelessMAN Standard for Wireless
Metropolitan Area Networks. The Working Group currently has 437 individual
members. It typically meets six times a year, around the globe (for more details,
see http://wirelessman.org).
Furthermore in this section we shortly summarized the technology
addressed by the different IEEE 802 wireless mobile broadband standard
programs, with particular attention to the IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.16, IEEE
802.20 and IEEE 802.21 frameworks.
The IEEE 802.11 working group has produced a standard describing MAC
(Medium Access Control) sublayer and multiple PHYs (PHYsical layers). IEEE
802.11 also describes MAC management functionality. IEEE 802.11a, IEEE
802.11b and IEEE 802.11g are additional PHY amendments to the base
standard (IEEE 802.11-1999). The existing standard and its amendments
describe several Wireless LAN PHYs:
 Infrared at 1 and, optionally, 2 Mb/s;
 Frequency hopping spread spectrum radio at 1 and, optionally, 2
Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band;
 Direct sequence spread spectrum radios with data rates up to 11
Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band (11b amendment, colloquially referred to
as Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity));
 Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing radios with data rates up
to 54 Mb/s in the 5-6 GHz band (11a amendment);
 Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing radios with data rates up
to 54 Mb/s in the 2.4 GHz band (11g amendment).
Current work includes extending the MAC and MAC-management
functionality to provide expanded international operation and roaming, improved
support for quality of service, enhanced security, dynamic channel selection,
transmit power control, and standardized communication between IEEE 802.11
access points (11e amendment). Moreover, the IEEE 802.11 has a variety of
standards (not only above given), each with a letter suffix. These cover
everything from the wireless standards themselves, to standards for security
aspects, quality of service and the like:
802.11a - Wireless network bearer operating in the 5 GHz ISM band with
data rate up to 54 Mbps
802.11b - Wireless network bearer operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band
with data rates up to 11 Mbps
802.11e - Quality of service and prioritisation
802.11f - Handover
802.11g - Wireless network bearer operating in 2.4 GHz ISM band with
data rates up to 54 Mbps

802.11h - Power control

802.11i - Authentication and encryption
802.11j - Interworking
802.11k - Measurement reporting
802.11n - Wireless network bearer operating in the 2.4 and 5 GHz ISM
bands with data rates up to 600 Mbps
802.11s - Mesh networking
802.11ac - Wireless network bearer operating below 6GHz to provide
data rates of at least 1Gbps per second for multi-station operation and 500 Mbps
on a single link
802.11ad - Wireless network bearer providing very high throughput at
frequencies up to 60GHz
802.11af - Wi-Fi in TV spectrum white spaces (often called White-Fi)
Of these the standards that are most widely known are the network bearer
standards, 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and now 802.11n. Their fundamental
characteristics are summarized in the Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Summary of major IEEE 802.11 standards.

The newest IEEE standard in the WLAN category is 802.11n. It was

designed to improve on 802.11g in the amount of bandwidth supported by
utilizing multiple wireless signals and antennas (MIMO technology) instead of
one. When this standard is finalized, 802.11n connections should support data
rates of over 100 Mbps. 802.11n also offers somewhat better range over earlier
WLAN standards due to its increased signal intensity. The IEEE 802.11n
equipment will be backward compatible with 802.11g gear and for sure is one of
the main IEEE standards for mobile broadband. More details about WLAN
broadband access networks are given in Module 3.
The second main IEEE mobile broadband standard is IEEE 802.16, which
defines the wireless metropolitan area network (MAN) technology which is
branded as WiMAX. The 802.16 includes two sets of standards, 802.16-2004
4

(802.16d) for fixed WiMAX, 802.16-2005(802.16e) for 3G mobile WiMAX and the
newest IEEE 802.16m-2011 for 4G Mobile WiMAX 2.0. The WiMAX wireless
broadband access standard provides the missing link for the "last mile"
connection in metropolitan area networks where DSL, Cable and other
broadband access methods are not available or too expensive. WiMAX also
offers an alternative to satellite Internet services for rural areas and allows
mobility of the customer equipment. Moreover, the IEEE 802.16m provides the
performance improvements necessary to support future advanced services and
applications for next generation broadband mobile communications. In October
2010, ITU-R agreed to incorporate this technology (Mobile WiMAX 2.0 (IEEE
802.16m-2011), also known as WirelessMAN-Advanced) into its IMT-Advanced
Recommendation specifying systems that support low to high mobility
applications, a wide range of data rates in multiple user environments, highquality multimedia applications, and significant improvements in performance and
quality of service. More details about the 3G and 4G Mobile WiMAX is provided
in the following sections.
On 11 December 2002, the IEEE Standards Board approved the
establishment of IEEE 802.20, the Mobile Broadband Wireless Access (MBWA)
Working Group. The mission of IEEE 802.20 is to develop the specification for an
efficient packet based air interface that is optimised for the transport of IP based
services. The goal is to enable worldwide deployment of affordable, ubiquitous,
always on and interoperable multi-vendor mobile broadband wireless access
networks that meet the needs of business and residential end user markets.
Specification of physical and medium access control layers of an air interface for
interoperable mobile broadband wireless access systems, operating in licensed
bands below 3.5 GHz, optimised for IP-data transport, with peak data rates per
user in excess of 1 Mbit/s. It supports various vehicular mobility classes up to
250 km/h in a MAN environment and targets spectral efficiencies, sustained user
data rates and numbers of active users that are all significantly higher than
achieved by existing mobile systems. The proposed standard will conform to the
appropriate IEEE 802 functional requirements. Compatibility will be addressed
during development of the standard and any variance that may be required will
be clearly identified and justified. The standard will include the definition of a
compliant management information base (MIB) in support of the PHY and MAC
layer capabilities. The proposed standard is applicable to licensed spectrum and
all issues of coexistence will be subject to the respective constraints imposed by
the spectrum license. Deployment related coexistence issues would be
addressed during the development of the proposed standard.
The main technical characteristics of IEEE 802.20 are: Frequency bands
below 3.5 GHz, peak data rates per user of 1 Mbps, vehicular mobility up to 250
km/h, large cells (up to 15 km), spectral efficiencies about 1 bit/s/Hz/cell, support
of Real and Non-Real data traffic, use spread spectrum technologies (like
Frequency Hopping), OFDM carrier and adaptive antennas.
The main advantages of IEEE 802.20 are: Delivery of broadband to fast
moving users, up to 250 km/h; good QoS: connection oriented MAC supports

data, voice and video; the aim is to have transparent IP services over different
mobile wireless technologies; various modulation and transmission codes.
Unfortunately, on June 8, 2006, the IEEE-SA Standards Board directed
that all activities of the 802.20 Working Group be temporarily suspended until
October 1, 2006. The decision came from complaints of a lack of transparency.
Later, IEEE 802.20 standard was put to hibernation on March 2011 due to lack of
activity.
On the other side, the IEEE 802.21 working group (see
www.ieee802.org/21) started work in March 2004. More than 30 companies have
joined the working group. The group produced a first draft of the standard
including the protocol definition in May 2005. The standard was published
January 2009. The main purpose of IEEE 802.21 (also called Media-Independent
Handovers (MIH)) is to enable handovers between heterogeneous technologies
(including IEEE 802 and cellular technologies) without service interruption, hence
improving user experience of mobile terminals. A lot of functionalities required to
provide session continuity depend on complex interactions that are specific to
each particular technology.
The IEEE 802.21 provides a framework that allows higher levels to
interact with lower layers to provide session continuity without dealing with the
specifics of each technology. That is, the upcoming protocol can be seen as the
glue between the IP centric world developed in IETF and the reference
scenarios for future mobile networks currently being designed in 3GPP and
3GPP2 or other technology specific solutions.
The main design elements of IEEE 802.21 can be classified into three
categories: a framework for enabling transparent service continuity while handing
over between heterogeneous access technologies; a set of handover-enabling
functions; and a set of Service Access Points (SAPs). However, the section 2.7 is
providing greater details about IEEE 802.21.

2.2. 3G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16e)

The IEEE 802.16e has emerged as a strong candidate standard for
nowadays 3G and future wireless systems primarily because it offers the
potential for high spectral efficiency, flexible spectrum options (e.g., 26 GHz),
scalable carrier bandwidth options (e.g., from 1.25 MHz to 20 MHz), multiple
duplexing options (time and frequency division duplex), various
subchannelization options, and, unlike its IEEE 802.16 predecessors, mobility.
Because of the recent emergence of IEEE 802.16e and the complexity it poses in
system analysis, there is little published work in the literature regarding the actual
system capacity (throughput) performance of IEEE 802.16e for high data rate
services.
The true 3G Mobile WiMAX standard of 802.16e is divergent from Fixed
WiMAX. It attracted a significant number of Forum members towards an
opportunity to substantively challenge existing 3G technology purveyors. While
clearly based on the same OFDM base technology adopted in 802.16-2004, the
802.16e version is designed to deliver service across many more sub-channels
than the OFDM 256-FFT. It is important to note that both standards support
single carrier, OFDM 256-FFT and at least OFDMA 1K-FFT.
Moreover, the 802.16e standard adds OFDMA 2K-FFT, 512-FFT and 128FFT capability. Sub-channelization facilitates access at varying distance by
providing operators the capability to dynamically reduce the number of channels
while increasing the gain of signal to each channel in order to reach customers
farther away. The reverse is also possible. For example, when a user gets
closer to a cell site, the number of channels will increase and the modulation can
also change to increase bandwidth. At longer ranges, modulations like QPSK
(which offer robust links but lower bandwidth) can give way at shorter ranges to
64 QAM (which are more sensitive links, but offer much higher bandwidth) for
example. Each subscriber is linked to a number of subchannels that obviate
multi-path interference. The upshot is that cells should be much less sensitive to
overload and cell size shrinkage during the load than before. Ideally, customers
at any range should receive solid QoS without drops that 3G technology may
experience. The 802.16e version of WiMAX also incorporates support for
multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) antenna technology as well as
Beamforming and Advanced Antenna Systems (AAS), which are all "smart"
antenna technologies that significantly improve gain of WiMAX systems as well
as throughput.
The 802.16e standard is being utilized primarily in licensed spectrum for
pure mobile applications. Many firms have elected to develop the 802.16e
standard exclusively for both fixed and mobile versions. The 802.16e version of
WiMAX is the closest comparable technology to the emerging LTE mobile
wireless standard. Or rather, it is more proper to say that LTE is the most
comparable to Mobile WiMAX in terms of capabilities as well as technology. The
two competing technologies are really very much alike technically.

In the following we summarised the key advantages of the 3G Mobile

WiMAX (802.16e):
 Mobile WiMAX physical layer is based on Scalable OFDMA
technology.
 The new technologies employed for Mobile WiMAX result in lower
equipment complexity and simpler mobility management due to the
all-IP core network and provide Mobile WiMAX systems with many
other advantages over CDMA-based 3G systems.
 Tolerance to Multipath and Self-Interference.
 Scalable Channel Bandwidth.
 Orthogonal Uplink Multiple Access.
 Support for Spectrally-Efficient TDD.
 Frequency-Selective Scheduling.
 Fractional Frequency Reuse.
 Fine Quality of Service (QoS).
 Advanced Antenna Technology.
IEEE 802.16e-2005 will initially operate in the 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, 3.3 GHz,
3.4-3.8 GHz spectrum bands. Support for additional bands will be added on the
basis of market demand and new spectrum allocations. The Release-1 of
802.16e profiles will cover 5, 7, 8.75, and 10 MHz channel bandwidths for
frequency bands above.
Furthermore, in figure 2.1 we give the Reference Model of 3G mobile
WiMAX.

Figure 2.1. 3G Mobile WiMAX Reference Model.

The WiMAX network reference model is composed of four logical parts:

Mobile Stations (MS)Comprises all user (subscriber) mobile devices,
such as cell phones, PDAs, and wireless laptops, and software needed
for communication with a wireless telephone network.


Network Access Provider (NAP)Provides radio access functionality.

Contains the logical representation of the functions of a NAP. Some of
the functions included in the NAP are: access service network (ASN),
802.16 interface with network entry and handover, ASN-GW
(gateway), base stations (wireless towers), foreign agent (FA), QoS
and policy enforcement, and forwarding to a selected CSN. A NAP
may have contracts with multiple NSPs.

Network Service Provider (NSP)Provides IP connectivity services.
Contains the logical representation of the functions of the NSP. Some
of the functions included within the NSP are: connectivity service
network (CSN), home agent (HA), visited and home AAA servers
(VAAA or HAAA), connectivity to the Internet, IP address management,
authentication, authorization, and accounting, and mobility and
roaming between ASNs. An NSP may have a contract with another
NSP and may also have contracts between multiple NAPs.

InternetProvides Internet content to a user/subscriber and
connectivity to a NSP.
Reference points (for example, R1 or R2) are conceptual links that
connect two functional entities. Reference points represent a bundle of protocols
between peer entities (similar to an IP network interface). Interoperability is
enforced through reference points without dictating how vendors implement the
edges of those reference points.
R1Represents the interface between the wireless device and the
base station.
R2Represents the link between the MS (mobile station) and the CSN
(connectivity service network). EAP traffic from the mobile station to the AAA
server traverses R2 and R3.
R3Represents the link between the ASN (access service network)
and the CSN. RADIUS traffic between the ASN-GW and the AAA server
traverses R3.
R4Represents the link between an ASN and another ASN.
R5Represents the link between a CSN and another CSN.
R6 consists of a set of control and bearer plane protocols for
communication between the BS and the ASN GW. The bearer plane consists of
intra-ASN data path or inter-ASN tunnels between the BS and ASN GW. The
control plane includes protocols for IP tunnel management (establish, modify,
and release) in accordance with the MS mobility events. R6 may also serve as a
conduit for exchange of MAC states information between neighboring BSs.
R8 consists of a set of control plane message flows and, in some
situations, bearer plane data flows between the base stations to ensure fast and
seamless handover. The bearer plane consists of protocols that allow the data
transfer between Base Stations involved in handover of a certain MS. The control
plane consists of the inter-BS communication protocol defined in IEEE 802.16
and additional set of protocols that allow controlling the data transfer between the
Base Stations involved in handover of a certain MS.

Furthermore, on figure 2.2 are given two implementation scenarios: ASN

scenario 1 and 2.

Figure 2.2. Illustration of the implementation scenarios.

The IEEE 802.16 mobile WiMAX standard allows data transmission using
multiple broadband frequency ranges. The original 802.16a standard specified
transmissions in the range 10 - 66 GHz, but 802.16d allowed lower frequencies
in the range 2 to 11 GHz. The lower frequencies used in the later specifications
means that the signals suffer less from attenuation and therefore they provide
improved range and better coverage within buildings. This brings many benefits
to those using these data links within buildings and means that external antennas
are not required. Different bands are available for WiMAX applications in different
parts of the world. The frequencies commonly used are 3.5 and 5.8 GHz for
802.16d and 2.3, 2.5 and 3.5 GHz for 802.16e but the use depends upon the
countries (see Table 2.2).
Furthermore, as one of the major goal of any network technology,
including mobile WiMAX is delivering any existing service with good level of QoS
support. In order to categorise the different types of QoS, there are five WiMAX
QoS classes that have been defined. These WiMAX QoS classes are defined in
the table 2.3 below. As we said before, the 3G Mobile WiMAX introduces
OFDMA and supports several key features necessary for delivering mobile
broadband services at vehicular speeds greater than 120 km/hr with QoS
comparable to broadband wireline access alternatives.

10

Table 2.2. Major spectrum allocations for 3G mobile WiMAX worldwide.

Table 2.3. WiMAX QoS classes.

11

The WiMAX technology continues to evolve with the WiMAX Forums

approval of the Release-1 mobile WiMAX system performance profiles based on
the 802.16e-2005 amendment and beyond 4G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16m2011, see the next section). With OFDMA, mobile WiMAX can meet the stringent
requirements necessary for the delivery of mobile broadband services in a
challenging mobile environment. Many performance simulations are showing that
3G mobile WiMAX provides superior throughput and spectral efficiency
compared to planned 3G CDMA-based enhancements, EVDO and HSPA. These
advantages will provide operators with added network capacity for the support of
value-added services with fewer base stations than alternative approaches thus
resulting in lower network capital and operating costs.

12

2.3. 4G Mobile WiMAX (IEEE 802.16m-2011)

The IMT-Advanced requirements (defined and approved by ITUR/Working Party 5D and published as Report ITU-R M.2134) are referred to as
target requirements in the IEEE 802.16m system requirement document and will
be evaluated based on the methodology and guidelines specified by Report ITUR M.2135. A careful examination of the IMT-Advanced requirements reveals that
they are a subset of, and less stringent than, the IEEE 802.16m system
requirements; therefore, the IEEE 802.16m standard can qualify as an IMTAdvanced technology. Full backward compatibility and interoperability with the
reference system is required for IEEE 802.16m systems, although the network
operator can disable legacy support in Greenfield deployments. The reference
system is defined as a system that is compliant with a subset of the IEEE
802.16e-2005 features (see the previous section). Furthermore, in Table 2.4 we
summarized the IEEE 802.16m baseline system requirements and the
corresponding requirements specified by Report ITU-R M.2134.
Table 2.4. IMT-Advanced and IEEE 802.16m system requirements.

13

The IEEE 802.16 standards describes medium-access-control (MAC) and

physical layer (PHY) protocols for fixed and mobile broadband wireless-access
systems, including IEEE 802.16m. The MAC and PHY functions can be classified
into three categories, namely, data plane, control plane, and management plane
(see Figure 2.3). The data plane comprises functions in the data processing path
such as header compression, as well as MAC and PHY data packet-processing
functions. A set of layer-2 (L2) control functions is required to support various
radio resource configuration, coordination, signaling, and management. This set
of functions is collectively referred to as the control-plane functions. A
management plane also is defined for external management and system
configuration. Therefore, all management entities fall into the managementplane
category. The IEEE 802.16m MAC layer is composed of two sublayers: the
convergence sublayer (CS) and the MAC common-part sublayer (MAC CPS).
For convenience, MAC CPS functions are classified into two groups based on
their characteristics as shown in Figure 2.3. The upper and lower classes are
called the resource control and management functional group and the MAC
functional group, respectively. The control-plane functions and data-plane
functions also are classified separately. As shown in Figure 2.3, the radioresource control and management functional group comprises several functional
blocks including:
 Radio-resource management: This block adjusts radio network
parameters related to the traffic load and also includes the functions of
load control (load balancing), admission control, and interference control.
 Mobility management: This block scans neighbor BSs and decides
whether an MS should perform a handover operation.
 Network-entry management: This block controls initialization and access
procedures and generates management messages during initialization
and access procedures.

14

Figure 2.3. Illustration of the IEEE 802.16m protocol structure.

 Location management: This block supports location-based service

(LBS), generates messages including the LBS information, and
manages the location-update operation during idle mode.
 Idle-mode management: This block controls idle-mode operation and
generates the paging- advertisement message, based on a paging
message from the paging controller in the core network.
 Security management: This block performs key management for secure
communication. Using a managed key, traffic encryption/ decryption and
authentication are performed.
 System configuration management: This block manages systemconfiguration parameters and generates broadcast-control messages,
such as a DL/UL channel descriptor.
 Multicast and broadcast service (MBS): This block controls and
generates management messages and data associated with the MBS.
 Connection management: This block allocates connection identifiers
(CIDs) during initialization/handover service-flow creation procedures;
interacts with the convergence sublayer to classify MAC service data
units (MSDUs) from upper layers; and maps MSDUs into a particular
transport connection.

15

Furthermore, the MAC functional group includes functional blocks that are
related to physical layer and link controls such as:
 PHY control: This block performs PHY signaling such as ranging,
channel quality measurement/feedback (CQI), and hybrid automatic
repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) or negative
acknowledgment (NACK) signaling.
 Control signaling: This block generates resource-allocation messages
such as DL/UL medium-access protocol (MAP), as well as specific
control signaling messages, and other signaling messages not in the
form of general MAC messages (e.g., a DL frame control header).
 Sleep mode management: This block handles sleep mode operation and
generates management messages related to sleep operation and can
communicate with the scheduler block to operate properly according to
the sleep period.
 Quality-of-service (QoS): This block performs rate control based on QoS
input parameters from the connection management function for each
connection.
 Scheduling and resource multiplexing: This block schedules and
multiplexes packets based on the properties of the connections.
 Automatic repeat request (ARQ): This block performs the MAC ARQ
function. For ARQ-enabled connections, the ARQ block splits MSDUs
logically and sequences logical ARQ blocks.
 Fragmentation/packing: This block performs the fragmentation or
packing of MSDUs based on input from the scheduler block.
 MAC PDU formation: This block constructs MAC protocol data units
(PDUs) so that a BS/MS can transmit user traffic or management
messages via PHY channels.
The IEEE 802.16m protocol structure is similar to that of IEEE 802.16 with
additional functional blocks for new features including the following:

Relay functions: Relay functionality and packet routing in relay networks

Self-organization and self-optimization functions: a plug-and-play form of
operation for an indoor BS (i.e., a femtocell).

Multi-carrier functions: Control and operation of a number of adjacent or
non-adjacent radio-frequency (RF) carriers where the RF carriers can be
assigned to unicast and/or multicast and broadcast services. A single
MAC instantiation is used to control several physical layers. If the MS
supports multi-carrier operation, it can receive control and signaling,
broadcast, and synchronization channels through a primary carrier, and
traffic assignments can be made on the secondary carriers. A
generalization of the protocol structure for multi-carrier support using a
single MAC instantiation is shown in Figure 2.4. The load-balancing
functions and the RF-carrier mapping and control are performed by the
radio-resource control and management functional class. From the
perspective of an MS, the carriers utilized in a multi-carrier system can
be divided into two categories:

16

 A primary RF carrier is the carrier that is used by the BS and the

MS to exchange traffic and full PHY/MAC control information.
 A secondary RF carrier is an additional carrier that the BS may use
for traffic allocations for mobile stations capable of multicarrier
support.

Figure 2.4. IEEE 802.16m multicarrier protocol stack and frame structure.

Based on the primary and/or secondary usage, the carriers of a multicarrier system can be configured differently as follows:
 Fully configured carrier: A carrier for which all control channels
including synchronization, broadcast, multicast, and unicast
control signaling are configured. The information and parameters
related to multi-carrier operation and the other carriers also can
be included in the control channels.
 Partially configured carrier: A carrier with only essential controlchannel configuration to support traffic exchanges during
multicarrier operation. If the user-terminal RF front end and/or its
baseband is not capable of processing more than one RF carrier
simultaneously, the user terminal may be allowed, in certain
intervals, to monitor secondary RF carriers and to resume
monitoring of the primary carrier prior to transmission of the
synchronization, broadcast, and nonuser-specific control
channels.

Multi-radio coexistence functions: Protocols for multi-radio coexistence,
where the MS generates management messages to report the
information about its co-located radio activities obtained from the inter-

17

radio interface, and the BS responds with the corresponding messages

to support multi-radio coexistence operation.
It is well known that the IEEE 802.16m uses OFDMA as the multiple
access scheme in the DL and UL. It further supports both time-division duplex
(TDD) and frequency-division duplex (FDD) schemes including the half-duplex
FDD (HFDD) operation of the mobile stations in the FDD networks. Also, IEEE
802.16m identified new frequency bands for FDD and TDD deployment of
systems (see Table 2.5).
Table 2.5. IEEE 802.16m frequency bands

18

The frame structure attributes and baseband processing are common for
both duplex schemes. The super-frame is a new concept introduced in IEEE
802.16m, where a super-frame is a collection of consecutive, equally-sized radio
frames, where the beginning is marked with a super-frame header. The superframe header carries short-term and long-term system configuration information
(Figure 2.5). To decrease the air-link access latency, the radio frames are further
divided into a number of sub-frames where each sub-frame comprises an integer
number of OFDMA symbols. The transmission time interval is defined as the
transmission latency over the air-link and is equal to a multiple of sub-frame
length (default one sub-frame).

Figure 2.5. The IEEE 802.16m frame structure for 5/10/20 MHz channel bandwidth.

19

There are three types of sub-frames depending on the size of the cyclic prefix:

Type-1 subframe, which consists of six OFDMA symbols

Type-2 subframe, which consists of seven OFDMA symbols

Type-3 subframe, which consists of five OFDMA symbols
In all of the sub-frame types, some of the symbols can be idle symbols. In the
basic frame structure, the super-frame length is 20 ms (comprising four radio
frames), radio frame size is 5 ms (comprising eight sub-frames), and sub-frame
length is 0.617 ms. The use of the subframe concept with the latter parameter set
would reduce the one-way air-link access latency from 18.5 ms (corresponding to
the reference system) to less than 5 ms. The concept of time zones that is
applied to both TDD and FDD systems was introduced in IEEE 802.16m. The
new and legacy time zones are time-division multiplexed across the time domain
for the DL. For UL transmissions, both time- and frequency-division multiplex
approaches are supported for the multiplexing of legacy and new terminals. The
non-backward compatible improvements and features are restricted to the new
zones. All backward compatible features and functions are used in the legacy
zones. In the absence of a legacy system, the legacy zones disappear, and the
entire frame is allocated to the new zones.
When it comes a word about modulation and coding in the IEEE 802.16m
we can say that it supports quadrature-phase shift keying (QPSK), 16-QAM, and
64-QAM modulation schemes in the DL and UL. The performance of adaptive
modulation generally suffers from the power inefficiencies of multilevelmodulation formats. This is due to the variations in bit reliabilities caused by the
bit-mapping onto the signal constellation. To overcome this issue, a constellation
rearrangement scheme is utilized where a signal constellation of quadrature
amplitude modulation (QAM) signals between retransmissions is rearranged; that
is, the mapping of the bits onto the complex-valued symbols between successive
HARQ retransmissions is changed, resulting in averaging the bit reliabilities over
several retransmissions and lower packet-error rates. The mapping of bits to the
constellation point depends on the constellation rearrangement type used for
HARQ retransmissions and also can depend on the MIMO scheme. The
complex-valued modulated symbols are mapped to the input of the MIMO
encoder. Incremental-redundancy HARQ is used in determining the starting
position of the bit selection for HARQ retransmissions.
Both convolutional code and convolutional turbo code with variable code
rate and repetition coding are supported. The modulation and coding schemes
used in a data transmission are selected from a set of 16 modulation coding
schemes (MCSs).
Furthermore, IEEE 802.16m supports several advanced multi-antenna
techniques including ingle and multi-user MIMO (spatial multiplexing and beamforming) as well as a number of transmit diversity schemes. In single-user MIMO
(SU-MIMO) scheme only one user can be cheduled over one resource unit, while
in multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), multiple users can e scheduled in one resource
unit.
Single-user MIMO (SU-MIMO) schemes are used to improve the link
performance, by providing robust transmissions with spatial diversity, or large

20

spatial multiplexing gain and peak data rate to a single MS, or beam-forming
gain. Both open-loop SU-MIMO and closed-loop SU-MIMO is supported in 16m.
For open-loop SU-MIMO, both spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity
schemes are supported. For closed-loop SU-MIMO, codebook based pre-coding
is supported for both TDD and FDD systems. CQI, PMI, and rank feedback can
be transmitted by the mobile station to assist the base stations scheduling,
resource allocation, and rate adaptation decisions. CQI, PMI, and rank feedback
may or may not be frequency dependent. For closed-loop SU-MIMO, sounding
based pre-coding is supported for TDD systems.
On the other side, multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) schemes are used to
enable resource allocation to communicate data to two or more MSs. MU-MIMO
enhances the system throughput. Multi-user transmission with one stream per
user is supported in MU-MIMO mode. MU-MIMO includes the MIMO
configuration of 2Tx antennas to support up to 2 users, and 4Tx or 8Tx antennas
to support up to 4 users. Both unitary and non-unitary MU-MIMO linear precoding techniques are supported.
For open-loop MU-MIMO, CQI and preferred stream index feedback may
be transmitted to assist the base stations scheduling, transmission mode
switching, and rate adaptation. The CQI is frequency dependent. For closed-loop
multi -user MIMO, codebook based pre-coding is supported for both TDD and
FDD systems. CQI and PMI feedback can be transmitted by the mobile station to
assist the base stations scheduling, resource allocation, and rate adaptation
decisions. CQI and PMI feedback may or may not be frequency dependent. For
closed-loop multi -user MIMO, sounding based pre-coding is supported for TDD
systems. In Figure 2.6 is given a basic comparison of SU-MIMO and MU-MIMO.

a)
b)
Figure 2.6. Examples of SU-MIMO (a)) and MU-MIMO (b)).

Multi-BS MIMO techniques are supported in IEEE 802.16m for improving

sector throughput and cell-edge throughput through multi-BS collaborative
precoding, network coordinated beamforming, or inter-cell interference nulling.
Both open-loop and closed-loop multi-BS MIMO techniques can be considered.
For closed-loop multi-BS MIMO, CSI feedback via codebook based feedback or
21

sounding channel will be used. The feedback information may be shared by

neighboring BSs via network interface. This places significant obligation in low
latency backhauls. COMP - Coordinated multi-point (CoMP) is a new class of
transmission schemes for interference reduction in the 802.16m technology.
Enabling features such as network synchronization, cell- and user-specific pilots,
feedback of multicell channel state information and synchronous data exchange
between the base stations can be used for interference mitigation and for
possible macro diversity gain. The collaborative MIMO (Co-MIMO) and the
closed-loop macro diversity (CL-MD) techniques are examples of the possible
options. For downlink Co-MIMO, multiple BSs perform joint MIMO transmission
to multiple MSs located in different cells. Each BS performs multi-user precoding
towards multiple MSs, and each MS is benefited from Co-MIMO by receiving
multiple streams from multiple BSs. For downlink CL-MD, each group of
antennas of one BS performs narrow-band or wide-band single-user precoding
with up to two streams independently, and multiple BSs (see Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7. Multi BS-MIMO

In DL and UL different MIMO techniques are available in IEEE 802.16m.

They are listed in Table 2.6 and 2.7 respectively.
Table 2.6. Supported MIMO techniques by IEEE 802.16m in DL

22

Table 2.7. Supported MIMO techniques by IEEE 802.16m in UL

Other key enhancements and features planned for the IEEE 802.16m
amendment and 4G mobile WiMAX System includes:
 Enhanced Multicast Broadcast Services (E-MBS) to provide greater
broadcast and multicast spectral efficiency and support for
switching between broadcast and unicast services whether on the
same or on different frequencies.
 Enhanced GPS-based and Non-GPS-based Location Based
Services (LBS) using triangulation schemes with < 30 seconds
latency for location determination.
 Self-Organizing Network (SON) features to enable selfconfiguration and self-optimization. Self-configuration enables true
plug and play of network nodes and cells as well as fast
reconfiguration and compensation in cases of failure. Selfoptimization ensures optimal network performance with respect to
service availability, QoS, network efficiency, and throughput under
changing traffic and environmental conditions.
 Enhanced security with more advanced encryption schemes
assuring confidentiality of user identity and user-generated data
packets (e.g. location privacy and user identity protection).
 Mobility: An IEEE 802.16m mobile station will maintain a
connection up to 350 km/hr and in some cases 500 km/hr
depending on the operating frequency band.
In the following sections some of those advanced features of IEEE
802.16m network design and deployment, like: E-MBS, Relaying, Femto-cells
and Self organizing networks and other will be overviewed in more details.

23

2.4. Femto cells in advanced WiMAX systems

Femtocells are viewed as a promising option for mobile operators to
improve coverage and provide high-data-rate services in a cost-effective manner.
The idea is to overlay low-power and low-cost base station devices, Femto-APs,
on the existing cellular network, where each Femto-AP provides high-speed
wireless connection to subscribers within a small range. In particular, Femto-APs
can be used to serve indoor users, resulting in a powerful solution for ubiquitous
indoor and outdoor coverage, using a single access technology such as Mobile
WiMAX. Moreover, the femtocells in 802.16m are low powered access points
typically used in home or SOHO to provide the access to closed or open group of
users as configures by the subscribers. Femtocells are normally connected to
service providers network through broadband or other access technologies. For
the femtocell BSs which can support Relay Link transmission, it may establish
the air interface connection with the overlapped macrocell BS for exchange of
control messages.
Through deployment of a large number of Femto-APs, significant gain in a
real capacity and indoor coverage can be achieved. In addition, Femto-AP
deployments have several advantages over other technologies. First, they are a
cost-effective solution for indoor access since they are more likely to be deployed
at places that need them most, and being a consumer device, the cost of a
Femto-AP is expected to be under $200. Wireless operators save on backhaul
costs since Femto-AP traffic is carried over wired residential broadband
connections that connect to the IP backbone. The consumer can expect
improved data speeds and service quality, and longer battery life as it is no
longer necessary to connect to outdoor macro/micro BSs. Furthermore, FemtoAPs enable the convergence of landline and mobile services since the same
handheld device can be used to access the broadband wireless connection
indoors and outdoors. In the future, it may also be possible to provide new
services such as indoor location finding, and fast music and video downloads
with Femto-APs deployed in advanced WiMAX systems.
To emphasize that the Femtocell BS (or Femto-AP) is intended to serve
public users, like public WLAN hot spot, or to serve closed subscriber group
(CSG) that is a set of subscribers authorized by the femtocell BS owner or the
service provider. CSG can be modified by the service level agreement between
the subscriber and the access provider. Femtocells coupled with the features of
self organizing systems, automatic neighbor establishment, coverage and
capacity optimization, software up gradations and handover optimization will be
supported in 16m to maximize the overall network performance. Note that SON
functions are intended for any BSs (e.g. Macro, Relay, Femtocell) to automate
the configuration of BS and has remarkable ability to optimize network
performance, coverage and capacity, but particularly are more important to
femtocell, since femtocell is typically installed by a subscriber. The scope of SON
in IEEE 802.16m is limited to the measurement and reporting of air interface

24

performance metrics from MS/BS, and the subsequent adjustments of BS

parameters.
Self organization can be divided into the following two;
 Initializing and configuring BSs automatically with minimum human
intervention ( Cell initialization, Neighbor discovery, and Neighbor
Macro BS Discovery)
 Self-optimization from the BS/MS and fine tuning the BS parameters in
order to optimize the network performance which includes QoS,
network efficiency, throughput, cell coverage and cell capacity.
An example network structure for an adnvanced WiMAX system with
Femto-APs is illustrated in Figure 2.8.

Figure. 2.8. Illustration of WiMAX network with Femto-BS.

The WiMAX network consists of two components, the access service

network (ASN) and connectivity service network (CSN). An all-IP network
structure is applied in the ASN where both operator-owned macro/micro BSs and
customer owned Femto-APs are connected to local ISP networks to reduce the
backbone implementation cost. Typically, the IP networks to which macro/micro
BSs are connected are built and owned by operators, whereas Femto-APs are
likely to connect to IP networks provided by local DSL or cable companies. In
contrast, the CSN is an existing backend composed of servers such as an
authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) server, mobile IP (MIP),
home agent (HA), and policy server. The interface between ASN and CSN
occurs at the ASN gateway (GW). Macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs
communicate with ASN gateways through the packet-switched IP network,
enabling exchange of necessary information with servers within the CSN. The
ASN gateways conduct tasks like location registration, authentication, paging
25

control, and service flow authorization. This WiMAX network architecture is flat
compared to typical cellular architectures (second/third generation [2G/3G]) since
RNC functions are integrated into macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs. Thus,
macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs in WiMAX networks should be more
autonomous. Additionally, such a system is more robust since each BS, either
macro/micro or femto, can connect to multiple ASN GWs such that there is no
single point of failure. The role of a Femto-AP in WiMAX network is the same as
a macro/micro BS. A Session Initiation Protocol/IP multimedia subsystem
(SIP/IMS) gateway is required to interwork with existing 2G/3G networks and the
public switched telephone network (PSTN).
However, the developing a new technology is always a challenging task.
In order for femtocells to be successful and provide significant capacity and
coverage gains, several technical issues need to be addressed. Furthermore we
discuss the technical challenges for femtocell deployments and possible
solutions:
a) NETWORK ARCHITECTURE: It is important to decide what kind of network
structure should be adopted by femtocells. Traditional 2G/3G networks
utilize centralized devices, RNCs, to control their associated base stations.
Typically, there is an RNC in charge of radio resource management of about
100 BSs. Once Femto-APs are overlaid on the existing network, the number
of devices an RNC needs to control will increase on the order of hundreds
to thousands or tens of thousands. Current network control entities may not
be scalable to handle so many devices. For advanced WiMAX networks,
scalability is less of an issue because of the flat all-IP network architecture.
In such a distributed control structure, more radio resource management
needs to be implemented at Femto-APs. Therefore, WiMAX Femto-APs
need to be more autonomous and powerful. In addition, the large neighbor
(cells) list that needs to be kept at a BS for timely handover can become
difficult to manage. The network architecture also needs to consider
infrastructure support for seamless mobility during handover. Management
protocols used in DSL systems, like TR-069 customer premises equipment
(CPE) WAN Management Protocol can be adopted for efficient
management of a large-scale femtocell network.
b) INTERFERENCE MANAGEMENT: In a hierarchical overlay network, where
WiMAX Femto-APs operate on the same frequency band as macro BSs, cochannel interference becomes an important factor that limits overall network
performance. When Femto-APs are installed indoors, however, walls help to
alleviate the interference between macro BSs and Femto-APs. As the
number of Femto-APs increase, the accumulated interference becomes a
serious issue. At a minimum, power control is required in Femto-APs to
avoid performance degradation to mobile terminals served by macro/micro
BSs. To guarantee close to 100 percent coverage, further interference
mitigation strategies such as fractional frequency reuse (FFR) could be
applied. In order to apply these more advanced interference mitigation
strategies, good synchronization is essential, as well as efficient means of
exchanging messages between macro BSs and Femto-APs.

26

c) SYNCHRONIZATION: Synchronization is required in order to have

successful handover between base stations. Furthermore, synchronization
is essential for interference management in outdoor systems using TDD
such as the 2.5 GHz systems planned for the initial release of mobile
WiMAX. In the existing 2G/3G BSs, there are high-accuracy oscillators that
are calibrated periodically by the timing signal sent from central controller
over very reliable links (T1 lines). This solution is not applicable to the all-IP
architecture of WiMAX networks. The synchronization requirement for
WiMAX is less stringent than for 2G or 3G technology. The frequency
accuracy suggested by the WiMAX Forum is less than 2 parts per million
(ppm), whereas 0.05 ppm is required in Global System for Mobile
Communications
(GSM)/wideband
code-division
multiple
access
(WCDMA)/CDMA 2000 systems. Synchronization in time to about 1 s may
also be required for TDD operation. Candidate calibration strategies include
GPS and IEEE 1588. GPS is more accurate, and provides both time and
location data. Localization may be a mandatory feature if operators want to
avoid customers moving Femto-APs outside of their houses. However, GPS
is more expensive and relies on GPS system availability. For indoor
femtocells, GPS is not suitable since it requires line of sight from the
satellite, which is difficult to achieve indoors. IEEE 1588, Precision Timing
Protocol (PTP), is a more suitable solution for Femto-APs. It uses a masterslave structure. There is a master clock in the network providing timing
reference to the slave clocks at Femto-APs. The timing signal is transmitted
over IP/Ethernet backhaul. IEEE 1588 is a low-cost standalone solution that
achieves submicrosecond accuracy. Application of IEEE 1588 to TDD
WiMAX, which requires both time and frequency synchronization, is yet to
be demonstrated.
d) SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE: In traditional cellular systems BSs are
connected directly to the operators network. With the registration and
authentication process, the cellular operator can thus easily prevent
unauthorized users accessing its own network to ensure security. However,
Femto-APs utilize local ISP networks, which may be different from the
operators network and are much more difficult to protect. The public IP
network can be accessed by almost everyone, including hackers who
attempt to eavesdrop on conversations or control the Femto-AP. Therefore,
in addition to a more sophisticated registration and authentication process,
encryption of IP packets is necessary. Another issue with the IP network is
that a cellular operator has no control over the channel and cannot prioritize
voice packets from Femto-APs. To ensure system and user performance,
collaboration and service level agreements between cellular and landline
operators are required. For example, with higher priority given to voice
packets from Femto-APs, end-to-end quality of service can be guaranteed.
e) SELF-ORGANIZATION AND AUTONOMOUS OPERATION: as it was
mentioned before, the WiMAX networks require a higher level of selforganization at both macro/micro BSs and Femto-APs because of the flat
network architecture. For example, handover and radio resource

27

management (RRM) are directly controlled by the BSs and Femto-APs.

Cooperation is required among BSs and Femto-APs for successful
handover and RRM information exchange. The communication between
BSs/Femto-APs can be over the landline or even over the air. Latency can
be an issue when sending control signals over the IP network. Faster
communication can be carried out using the wireless medium, but the actual
procedures remain to be standardized. Besides the self-organization
functions shared with macro/micro BSs, a Femto-AP requires even higher
autonomy since it should be a plug-and-play device that can integrate itself
into the mobile network without user intervention. A configuration function in
the device should be capable of adjusting parameters under various
environments since the locations of Femto-APs cannot be planned in
advanced, as for macro/micro BSs. Also, the large number of Femto-APs
deployed within the network makes manual maintenance virtually
impossible. The possibility of updating firmware and software of the FemtoAPs could be an important requirement.
The blossoming industrial activities arise from the potentially high gains in
coverage and capacity expected from femtocell deployments, as well as the large
number of deployments anticipated. Some research reports are forecasting that
by 2012 there will be 36 million shipments with an installed base of nearly 70
million femtocells serving over 150 million users. Unsatisfactory coverage and
the increasing number of high-data-rate applications are two of the driving forces
for femtocell development in advanced Mobile WiMAX systems. Femto-APs
improve coverage and provide huge areal capacity gain through spatial reuse of
the available bandwidth, as well as spectral efficiency enhancement. Although
femtocells offer the aforementioned advantages, there are several technical
challenges remaining to be overcome before Femto-APs are widely adopted in
the market. These include innovative algorithms for management of large-scale
Femto-AP networks, advanced interference mitigation methods to ensure
satisfactory coverage when Femto-APs are densely deployed, and seamless
roaming outdoors and indoors. In the future, increasing efforts should be devoted
to femtocell research in advanced WiMAX systems, in order to accelerate its
success.

28

2.5. Mobile WiMAX network design and deployment

As Along with traditional factors such as link budgets and signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR), design and deployment considerations for Mobile WiMAX systems
should include the cost-saving opportunities offered by the 802.16e/m standard.
For example, the standards are allowing for the use of low-cost chipsets and
enables flexible bandwidth scalability. Furthermore we will provide an overview of
these and other considerations involved in deploying Mobile WiMAX systems.
Fact is that a wide variety of technical points need to be considered when
designing a Mobile WiMAX network. Designing, deploying and managing any
wireless and mobile system requires clear objectives to be identified from the
outset; like: definition of the service area, the projected number of mobile users,
their distribution, spectrum availability, system usage, growth rate, and the
network interconnect agreement, numbering, and outing policy for inter=network
access and roaming. The QoS of Mobile WiMAX network is a critical aspect of
radio planning, which determines the level of service that users will experience
when they access the network for multimedia services. The carefully formulated
design criteria such as link-budgets, targeted service classes, coverage threshold
levels for different service types, an appropriate propagation model for the
available spectrum and an appropriate channel allocation strategy can help in
satisfying the technical and business goals. A significant consideration is the
efficiency (cost and performance) involved in providing coverage and capacity,
while avoiding the build-out of a large number of new cell sites.
In Figure 2.9 is given the natural flow of activities performed in the Mobile
WiMAX network planning, starting from gathering the marketing and design
requirement input and satisfying and design requirement input and satisfying the
business model to providing a normal cell plan using a network planning tool.
The first item to consider is the link budget the loss and gain sum of
signal strength through the varying medium of the transmission path. The link
budget determines the maximum cell radius for an adequate service-level
agreement (SLA). Additionally a good SNR is critical for the system to perform at
the optimum level. As mentioned earlier, the 802.16e and the 802.16m standards
will reduce the cost of mobile deployments by enabling VARs to use the chipsets
originally intended for laptops and PDAs. These chipsets can be leveraged in the
manufacture of indoor and outdoor fixed customer premises equipment for
WiMAX. IEEE 802.16e and 802.16m are offering the critical advantage of
allowing the operator to think about cost savings for serving large coverage
areas. Another benefit of the 802.16e OFDMA specification is that the bandwidth
of the system is easily scalable because of the fixed relationship between the
occupied bandwidth and the OFDM symbol sample rate. While several sample
rates are enabled by the 802.16e standards specification of fast Fourier
transform (FFT) sizes of 128, 512, 1024, and 2048, the subcarrier separation and
symbol duration remain constant as the deployment bandwidth changes. The
ability to scale while maintaining constant symbol duration provides more
flexibility in equipment components. Most importantly, operators can deploy
29

systems today and grow system bandwidth in the future at lower cost-without
impact to earlier deployments.

Figure 2.9. Mobile WiMAX network dimensioning and planning processes

Wireless design criteria vary across four types of environments:

1) Dense Urban: A city center with many businesses and high-density
residential units represents a challenge due to multipath effects among the
multi-story buildings.
2) Urban: Surrounding a city center, average building heights may be lower
than the mast of a base station, but the propagation environment remains
equally challenging.
3) Suburban: With lower-density housing (primarily single-family dwellings)
and fewer businesses, average building heights are much lower than base
station towers and structures are more spread out, thus creating a more
favourable propagation environment.
4) Rural: Where homes are far apart and businesses widely scattered, this
environment offers no obstruction to wireless propagation so long as the
terrain is flat.
To take full advantage of WiMAX scalability, system operators need to use
the right software tools to predetermine coverage boundaries. These tools
perform propagation simulation and drive tests. Careful deployment planning is
critical in order to have room to scale, anticipating growing customer demands
while ensuring a quality user experience. This planning is especially important in
urban areas, where deployments are most likely to be driven by capacity
requirements.
30

Population density and population growth rates are easily obtained for any
metropolitan area by referring to census data. When considering mobile services
the addressable market can be assumed to be any individual within a certain age
group. The specific age group targeted may differ from operator to operator
based on planned services and population density data.
A 3-sector base station is standard for cellular and PCS systems, and it
also suits WiMAX systems (Figure 2.10). To make best use of the available
wireless spectrum, Mobile WiMAX systems can utilize both sector and frequency
reuse. Sector reuse is using one sector to cover multiple areas, at least one of
which is closer to another base station. Frequency reuse is using a frequency to
serve multiple sectors that do not mutually interfere. With a frequency reuse of 1,
each of a BSs three sectors use the same channel (thus effectively combining
the three sectors into a single sector). A frequency reuse of 3 eliminates cochannel interference at the sector boundaries. This reuse also significantly
decreases co-channel interference between neighboring cells due to the
increased spatial separation for channels operating at the same frequency provided that the cell sector boundaries are properly aligned. Getting the right
alignment involves down-tilting antennas and performing drive tests to see if
each sector covers the proposed azimuths. The inherent properties of Mobile
WiMAXs OFDMA scheme controls adjacent channel interference (ACI) at the
sector boundaries.

Figure 2.10. 3-Sector Wireless System with Frequency Reuse

Calculations for link margins and SNR must include a number of factors,
mostly related to the deployment environment and quality of service goals. The
chosen Mobile WiMAX implementation technology strongly influences these
tradeoffs. Because of the importance of good reception inside buildings and
vehicles, penetration loss must be taken into account by utilizing the
normalization factor (n-factor) for a given medium. The n-factor depends on the
modulation and is used to achieve the same average power for all mappings.
The modulation is based on Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) with 2M
points constellation, where M is the number of bits transmitted per modulated

31

symbol. For Mobile WiMAX downlinks, 4QAM (QPSK, M = 2) and 16QAM (M=4)
are mandatory, while 64QAM (M=6) is optional. For uplinks, 4QAM is mandatory
and 16QAM is optional. As a propagation model for making calculations, Mobile
WiMAX deployments can take advantage of the Modified Hata COST 231 model.
This widely used version of the COST 231 model is suitable for mobile
applications in the 1900 MHz band and acceptable for the 2500 MHz and 3500
MHz bands.
Another factor is antenna gain, which can be used to increase coverage
with the trade-off that increasing gain decreases the carrier-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (CINR). A CINR of 25 dB or better is normal. Other link parameters
including fade margins and interference margins are assumed to be the same for
each of the frequency bands 2.5 GHz, 3.5 GHz and eventually 5.8 GHz
bands.
On the other hand, the intelligent relays are an effective technology to
achieve important deployment tools to provide cost-effective methods of
delivering high data rate and avoid coverage holes in deployments areas. In
addition, upgrading the networks in order to support higher data rates is
equivalent to an increase of signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) at the
receivers front-end. Also, through deployment the network providers have to
avoid coverage area holes. A traditional solution to increase the receivers SINR
is to deploy additional BSs or repeaters to serve the coverage area holes with
required data rates. In most of the cases, the cost of the BS is relatively high and
arranging backhauls quickly might be a challenge in serving coverage holes. By
now industry has used RF repeaters; however repeater has the problem of
amplifying the interference and has no intelligence of signal control and
processing. In order to achieve a more cost effective solution, relay stations (RS)
capable of decoding and forwarding the signals from source to destination
through radio interface would help operators to achieve higher SINR in cost
effective manner. Relay stations do not need a wire-line backhaul; the
deployment cost of RSs is expected to be much lower than the cost of BSs. The
system performance could be further improved by the intelligent resource
scheduling and cooperative transmission in systems employing intelligent relays.
Moreover, deploying RS can improve IEEE 802.16m network in different
dimensions. The following figure 2.11 illustrates the different benefits that can be
achieved by deploying RS within an IEEE802.16m network.

Figure 2.11. Relay usage in IEEE 802.16m.

32

Another key advantage in Mobile WiMAX 2.0 are the Enhanced multicast
and broadcast services (E-MBS). They are point-to-multipoint communication
systems where data packets are transmitted simultaneously from a single source
to multiple destinations. The E-MBS content is transmitted over an area identified
as a zone. An E-MBS zone is a collection of one or more IEEE 802.16m BSs
transmitting the same content. The contents are identified by the same identifiers
(IDs). Each ABS capable of E-MBS service can belong to one or more E-MBS
zones. Each E-MBS Zone is identified by a unique E-MBS_Zone ID. An IEEE
802.16m MS can continue to receive the E-MBS within the E-MBS zone in
Connected State or Idle State. Moreover, the 802.16m BS may provide E-MBS
services belonging to different E-MBS zones (i.e. the ABS locates in the
overlapping E-MBS zone area). E-MBS data bursts may be transmitted in terms
of several sub-packets, and these sub-packets may be transmitted in different
sub-frame and to allow 802.16m MSs combining but without any
acknowledgement from 802.16m MSs.
Finally, the location is seen as one the major new business model drivers
in advanced Mobile WiMAX Networks. A major difference between mobile
broadband networks and fixed networks is that the former can be subject to
location changes. This provides a huge opportunity for location based services
(LBS) which have very broad potential to integrate with high performance mobile
services. General LBS include the updating of maps, provision of information on
the location of shops, service points, etc., depending on the location of the user.
As LBS become more intuitive to use, require regular updates when on the move
and have access to the sophistication of applications like Google Maps and
Google Earth, they are expected to drive network traffic to considerable volumes.
Operators are strongly interested in LBS as a route to providing true
personalized services, and, with true broadband connectivity, they will be able to
take advantage of devices with embedded GPS to offer their own and third party
services, e.g. using Google Maps or similar. Services such as these raise the
possibility of new business models to be developed for charging users or
specialist service providers for use of network capacity. As it is well known the
IEEE 802.16m supports basic MAC and PHY features to support both use cases,
with or without use of GPS or equivalent satellite based location solution. The
service can be provided to:
 The end user providing the AMS with value added services.
 External emergency or lawful interception services.
 The network operator using the location information for network
operation and optimization.
In order to enhance location based service, 802.16m MS should send
report location-related information which includes the location information or the
measurement for determining location in response to the request of 802.16m BS.
In addition, LBS are supported for 802.16m MS in connected state as well as idle
state. For the connected state, AMS can report location information when it is
needed. For the idle state, 802.16m MS should perform network re-entry to
report location information when it is needed. The 802.16m MS positioning is
performed by using measurement methods, such as TDOA, TOA, AOA, and etc.,

33

whose relevant location-related parameters may include cell-ID, RSSI, CINR,

RD, RTD, angle, and Spatial Channel Information. These parameters are
exchanged between the 802.16m MS and its serving/attached or/and
neighboring 802.16m BSs/ARSs. Location determination methods contain GPS
based methods, assisted GPS and not GPS based. In figure 2.12 the
architecture for LBS in IEEE 802.16m is presented.

Figure. 2.12. Architecture for LBS.

We can summarize that when considering Mobile WiMAX deployment

factors such as link budgets and SNR as it was described before, one of the
most important factors is the technology used to implement base stations, relays
and subscriber equipments. The main focus of Mobile WiMAX radio network
design, deployment and optimization is expected to be on areas such as: the
sub=carrier allocation scheme, neighbour list definition, zoning definition for the
frequency reuse of 1 and channel measurements. The network performance
optimisation involves establishing the end-to-end key performance indicators
(KPIs), and service integrity for monitoring the new QoS and perceived the end
user. It is always beneficial to have a proactive performance monitoring systems
in place to ensure the set design standards are always met.
.

34

2.6. WiMAX Interworking with LTE/LTE-Advanced networks

The main challenges in wireless mobile interworking of connecting the
cellular network with the other wireless networks include issues like: security,
seamless handover, location and emergency services, cooperation, and QoS
provisioning. The developed interworking mechanisms, that is, unlicensed mobile
access (UMA), IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), and Media independent
handover (MIH), due to the characteristics of wireless channel, need to be
analyzed and tested under various circumstances.
Table 2.8. LTE/LTE-Advanced and WiMAX technical specifications
LTE (3GPP Rel-8)
Physical layer
Duplex mode
User Mobility
Channel Bandwidth
Peak Data Rates
Spectral Efficiency
Latency
VoIP Capacity

DL: OFDMA
UL : SC-FDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20
MHz
DL: 302 Mbps
UL: 75 Mbps
DL: 1.91bps/Hz
UL: 0.72 bps/Hz
Link Layer < 5 ms
Handoff < 50ms

LTE-Advanced
(3GPP Rel-10)
DL: OFDMA
UL: SC-FDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
Aggregates components of R8
DL: 1 Gbps
UL: 300 Mbps
DL: 30 bps/Hz
UL: 15 bps/Hz
Link Layer < 5 ms
Handoff < 50ms

80 users per sector/MHz (FDD)

>80 users per sector/MHz (FDD)

WiMAX 802.16e
(R1.0)
DL : OFDMA
UL : OFDMA
TDD
60 to 120 km/h
3.5, 5, 7, 8.75, 10
MHZ
DL: 46 Mbps
UL: 4 Mbps
DL: 1.91bps/Hz
UL: 0.84 bps/Hz
Link Layer = 20 ms
Handoff =35 to
50ms
20 users per sector/MHz (TDD)

WiMAX 802.16m
(R2.0)
DL: OFDMA
UL: OFDMA
FDD and TDD
350 km/h
5,10,20, 40 MHZ
DL: 350 Mbps
UL: 200 Mbps
DL: 2.6 bps/Hz
UL: 1.3 bps/Hz
Link Layer< 10ms
Handoff < 30ms
>30 users per sector/MHz (TDD)

Furthermore in Table 2.8 the general technical specification of the

LTE/LTE-Advanced and WiMAX with comparisions are given. Both LTE and
WiMAX use orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDMA) in the
Download but LTE uses Single Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access (SCFDMA). So, in the LTE uplink signal achieves saving power capacity without
degrading system flexibility and performance. There is provision of both TDD and
FDD in WiMAX802.16m (R2.0) but current market of WiMAX is based on
802.16e. So, in this case we can say WiMAX uses TDD and LTE uses both TDD
and FDD. User mobility and Data rate is higher in LTE than the commercial
WiMAX. The latency requirement in the WiMAX and LTE specifications is small
enough to support real-time applications, such as voice applications. A voice
application could tolerate a delay of between 50 and 200 ms without the user
perceiving a decrease in quality. Low latency is thus essential in these mobile
broadband standards. The low latency is also coupled with high data rates to
satisfy bandwidth-intensive applications. Both standards support mobility in that
users can carry the device traveling at speeds of up to 350 km/h. So, users on a
high-speed train, for example, could connect to a 4G network.

35

The main difference between WiMAX and LTE is that WiMAX benefits
from its earlier development and deployment, while LTE has the advantage of
being developed by telecommunications companies who get to choose which
technology to deploy. WiMAX jump started the mobile broadband market.
According to the WiMAX Forum, WiMAX has about 592 deployments world wide
with more than 10 million subscribers. Also, WiMAX has spectrum allocated for it
in 149 countries, and many telecommunications companies are involved in
WiMAX activities. However, now that LTEs development has picked up, some
telecommunications companies have backed away from WiMAX. Recently, Cisco
announced that it will discontinue offering WiMAX base stations and will focus on
radio agnostic IP core solutions. Alcatel-Lucent made a similar announcement.
However, companies such as Clear wire that have invested in WiMAX dont have
to discontinue their offerings. WiMAX could coexist in the broadband arena with
LTE, and moreover we expect the ITU to include that coexistence of those two
technologies in its recommendations for IMT-Advanced. However, this doesnt
necessarily mean that WiMAX or LTE will prevail at that time, as weve learned
from previous ITU recommendations. The IMT-2000 (3G) recommended several
independent technologies that meet the same goals. For example, in 2007, ITU
added OFDM as part of 3G at the request of IEEE. Thus, ITU can include
multiple standards in its recommendation, which means the real battle between
WiMAX and LTE will be how successfully theyre deployed and used. LTE
supports handover and roaming with the 3GGP mo-bile networks but with
WiMAX these services are not easy to achieve. From telecom operator point of
view, the roaming service generates numerous benefits for operators. It extends
the coverage of the operator using the network of other carriers, it generates
more benefits of visitors from other carriers and it provides to users an important
service i.e. user can travel far away from his operator.
However, both WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced use IP backbone for the
access part. So, there is not any problem in access part, it is easily upgradable
but we have to careful about the core elements. The deployment of an integrated
architecture that allows users to seamlessly switch between these two types of
networks would present several advantages to both users and service providers.
By offering integrated LTE/WiMAX services, users would benefit from the
enhanced performance and high data rate of such combined service. For the
providers, this could capitalize on their investment, attract a wider user base and
ultimately facilitate the ubiquitous introduction of high speed wireless data. The
required LTE access network may be owned either by the WiMAX operator or by
any other party, which then requires proper rules and Service Level Agreements
(SLAs) set up for smooth interworking on the basis of business and roaming
agreements between the LTE and mobile WiMAX operators. In [20], authors
proposed integrating architecture of the WiMAX and LTE.
In Figure 2.13, the Mobile WiMAX supports access to a variety of IP
multimedia services via WiMAX radio access technologies which is called Access
Service Network (ASN). The ASN is owned by a Network Access Provider (NAP)
and comprises one or more BS and one or more ASN gateways (ASN-GW) that
form the radio access network. Access control and traffic routing for Mobile

36

Stations (MSs) in Mobile WiMAX is entirely handled by the Connectivity Service

Network (CSN), which is owned by a Network Service Provider (NSP), and provides IP connectivity and all the IP core network functions.

Figure 2.13. Example of WiMAX-LTE/LTE-Advanced Integrating Architecture.

The LTE network may be owned either by the NAP or by any other part in
which case the interworking is enabled and governed by appropriate business
and roaming agreement.3GPP and Mobile WiMAX accesses are integrated
through the Evolved Packet Core (EPC). 3GPP access connections are
supported by the Serving Gateway (SGW), and Mobile WiMAX accesses are
connected to the Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW). Specifically, the legacy
serving GPRS support node (SGSN) is connected to the SGW. New logical
entities are also added to the system architecture. The ANDSF is an entity that
facilitates the discovery of the target access. The target access supported by the
ANDSF can be either a 3GPP or Mobile WiMAX cell. This entity is introduced by
3GPP in order to minimize the impacts on the use of radio signals. The use of
radio signals for neighbor cell discovery requires the User Equipment (UE) to
utilize multiple antennas, which result in power consumption. Moreover, if the cell
information is not broadcast, the UE is unable to acquire the appropriate target
cell information. Optionally, the ANDSF can provide additional information about
neighbor cells, such as QoS capabilities, which cannot be distributed by radio
signals due to high data demand. Integration architecture proposed in Figure
2.13 is basically interworking between WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced. In
network transition from WiMAX to LTE can be run in parallel both networks
utilizing all the existing elements of the WiMAX including certain elements of the
LTE/LTE-Advanced so that it solves the problem of service interruption in
switchover the system and subscribers get experience from both technology for
certain period.
On the other side, the network management is also the important factor to
be considered while moving from one network to the other network. There might

37

be some difficulty in handling by the same network management system after

moving from WiMAX to LTE/LTE-Advanced or vice versa, but there can be used
existing network management system. Existing network management system
can use after switching towards the LTE/LTE-Advanced and it can be used for
traffic handling from one network to the other network during switch over.
Although WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced are based on the same
fundamental mobile wireless standard, they have difference inperformance like
peak data rate, user mobility, power consumption, handover, roaming facilities
etc. But the main difference between two technologies is: LTE/LTE-Advanced
systems are increasing theri momentum in the current 4G wireless technology
and Mobile WiMAX is losing the current market day by day. In this scenario, any
of the operators wants to sustain in the market for the future. Due to competeion
in the 4G wireless technology of Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced in the
current market, WiMAX operators are in confusion of their future. Moreover, there
are some recommendations for current WiMAX operators to move their network
towards the TD-LTE so that they can survive in the current 4G wireless
technology, they can save cost in migrating their network from one technology to
another technology and they can use same spectrum after migrating to the
advanced network technology.

38

2.7. Mobile IP, IEEE 802.21 for seamless mobility

In this section we will describe the Mobile IP support together with the
IEEE 802.21 standard for seamless mobility.

2.7.1. Mobile IP
The Mobile IP is officially known as "Internet Protocol Mobility Support." It
is an area under rapid development and one of the factors driving the
requirements to redevelop the Internet Protocol as IPv6. Generally, Mobile IP can
be thought of as the cooperation of three major subsystems. First, there is a
discovery mechanism defined so that mobile terminals can determine their new
attachment points (new IP addresses) as they move from place to place within
the Internet. Second, once the mobile terminal knows the IP address at its new
attachment point, it registers with an agent representing it at its home network.
Lastly, mobile IP defines simple mechanisms to deliver datagrams to the mobile
node when it is away from its home network.
In the beginning of this sub-section, it is a good idea to frame the
discussion by setting some terminology, adapted from the mobile IP
specification. Mobile IP introduces the following new functional entities:

Mobile node - A host or router that changes its point of attachment from
one network or subnetwork to another, without changing its IP address.
A mobile node can continue to communicate with other Internet nodes at
any location using its (constant) IP address.

Home agent - A router on a mobile nodes home network which delivers
datagrams to departed mobile nodes, and maintains current location
information for each.

Foreign agent - A router on a mobile nodes visited network which
cooperates with the home agent to complete the delivery of datagrams
to the mobile node while it is away from home.
A mobile node has a home address, which is a long-term IP address on its
home network. When away from its home network, a care-of address is
associated with the mobile node and reflects the mobile nodes current point of
attachment. The mobile node uses its home address as the source address of all
IP datagrams it sends, except where otherwise required for certain registration
request datagrams.
The following terms are frequently used in connection with Mobile IP:
Agent advertisement - Foreign agents advertise their presence by
using a special message, which is constructed by attaching a special
extension to a router advertisement, as described in the next section.
Care-of-address - The termination point of a tunnel toward a mobile
node, for datagrams forwarded to the mobile node while it is away from
home. There are two different types of care-of-address (CoA): a foreign
agent care-of address is an address of a foreign agent with which the
mobile node is registered; a collocated care-of address is an externally

39

obtained local address which the mobile node has associated with one
of its own network interfaces.
Correspondent node - A peer with which a mobile node is
communicating. A correspondent node may be either mobile or
stationary.
Mobility agent - Either a home agent or a foreign agent.
Mobility binding - The association of a home address with a care-of
address, along with the remaining lifetime of that association.
Mobility security association - A collection of security contexts
between a pair of nodes which may be applied to mobile IP protocol
messages exchanged between them. Each context indicates an
authentication algorithm and mode (as described in the fourth section), a
secret (a shared key, or appropriate publiciprivate key pair), and a style
of replay protection in use.

To emphasize that nowadays we have two types of Mobile IP protocol

versions: Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6). MIPv4 is a popular
mobility protocol used in the current IPv4 networks, but with the next generation
networks emerging developments, there are the IPv6 networks, and the MIPv6
protocol. MIPv6 is design to deal with mobility and to overcome some problems
suffered by MIPv4. Although MIPv6 shares many features with MIPv4, there are
some differences between them (discussed later in this sub-section). The most
significant difference between MIPv4 and MIPv6 is that MIPv6 is integrated into
the base IPv6 protocol and not an add-on feature, as is the case with IPv4 and
MIPv4. Because most Internet devices will soon be mobile, it is important that all
devices are inherently designed to be mobile and IPv6/MIPv6 allows for this.
Furthermore, we will elaborate the three general functions in Mobile IPv4.
Those related functions are:
 Agent Discovery - Mobility agents advertise their availability on each
link for which they provide service.
 Registration - When the mobile node is away from home, it registers
its CoA with its home agent.
 Tunneling - In order for datagrams to be delivered to the mobile
node when it is away from home, the home agent has to tunnel the
datagrams to the care-of address.
The following will give a rough outline of operation of the Mobile IPv4
protocol, making use of the above-mentioned operations. Figure 2.14 may be
used to help envision the roles played by the entities.
Mobility agents make themselves known by sending agent advertisement
messages. An impatient mobile node may optionally solicit an agent
advertisement message. After receiving an agent advertisement, a mobile node
determines whether it is on its home network or a foreign network. A mobile node
basically works like any other node on its home network when it is at home.

40

Figure 2.14. Mobile IP packet flow.

When a mobile node moves away from its home network, it obtains a CoA
on the foreign network, for instance, by soliciting or listening for agent
advertisements, or contacting DHCP or Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP). While
away from home, the mobile node registers each new CoA with its home agent,
possibly by way of a foreign agent. Figure 2.15 illustrated the Mobile IP
registration process. IP packets sent to the mobile nodes home address are
intercepted by its home agent, tunneled by its home agent to the CoA, received
at the tunnel endpoint (at either a foreign agent or the mobile node itself), and
finally delivered to the mobile node. In the reverse direction, datagrams sent by
the mobile node are generally delivered to their destination using standard IP
routing mechanisms, not necessarily passing through the home agent.

Figure 2.15. Mobile IP registration process.

When the home agent tunnels a datagram to the CoA, the inner IP header
destination (i.e., the mobile nodes home address) is effectively shielded from
intervening routers between its home network and its current location. At the
CoA, the original datagram exits from the tunnel and is delivered to the mobile
node. It is the job of every home agent to attract and intercept datagrams that are
41

destined to the home address of any of its registered mobile nodes. In Figure
2.16, the tunneling process in Mobile IPv4 is plotted.

Figure 2.16. Mobile IP tunneling process.

The home agent basically does this by using a minor variation on proxy
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), and to do so in the natural model it has to
have a network interface on the link indicated by the mobile nodes home
address. However, the latter requirement is not part of the mobile IP
specification. When foreign agents are in use, similarly, the natural model of
operation suggests that the mobile node be able to establish a link its foreign
agent. Other configurations are possible, however, using protocol operations not
defined by (and invisible to) mobile IP. Notice that, if the home agent is the only
router advertising reachability to the home network, but there is no physical link
instantiating the home network, then all datagrams transmitted to mobile nodes
addressed on that home network will naturally reach the home agent without any
special link operations.
On the other hand, Mobile IPv6 is the next generation mobile protocol and
in the near future, all nodes/routers are going to become more faster and the new
technologies are going to reduce the Internet delay and will provide advanced
mobility management. IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) expects that the
IPv6 protocol will replace the IPv4 protocol in the near future. Although space
does not permit a full exposition of the details of the proposed MIPv6, some
overall discussion is certainly in order.
The Mobile IPv6 uses the experiences gained from the design and
development of Mobile IPv4 together with the new IPv6 protocol features. Mobile
IPv6 shares many features with Mobile IPv4, but the protocol is now fully
integrated into IPv6 and provides many improvements over Mobile IPv4. The
major differences between Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 are:
 Support for "Route Optimisation": This feature is now built in as a
fundamental part of the Mobile IPv6 protocol. In Mobile Ipv4 the route

42

optimisation feature is being added on as an optional set of extensions

that may not be supported by all IP nodes.
In Mobile IPv6 (also integrated in the IPv6) a new feature is specified
that allows Mobile Nodes and Mobile IP to coexist efficiently with routers
that perform "ingress filtering" [RFC2267]. The packets sent by a Mobile
Node can pass normally through ingress filtering routers. This can be
accomplished due to the fact that the CoA is used as the Source
Address in each packets IP header. Moreover, the Mobile Nodes home
address is carried in the packet in a Home Address destination option.
This allows the use of the care-of address in the packet to be
transparent above the IP layer, e.g., TCP.
By using the CoA as the Source Address in each packet's IP header the
routing of multicast packets sent by a Mobile Node is simplified. In
Mobile IPv6 the Mobile Node will not anymore have to tunnel multicast
packets, as specified in Mobile IPv4, to its Home Agent. Moreover, the
use of the Home Address option allows the home address to be used but
still be compatible with multicast routing that is based in part, on the
packet's Source Address.
In Mobile IPv6 the functionality of the Foreign Agents can be
accomplished by IPv6 enhanced features, such as Neighbour Discovery
and Address Autoconfiguration [RFC1971]. Therefore, there is no need
to deploy Foreign Agents in Mobile IPv6.
The Mobile IPv6, unlike Mobile IPv4, uses IPsec for all security
requirements such as sender authentication, data integrity protection,
and replay protection for Binding Updates (which serve the role of both
registration and Route Optimisation in Mobile IPv4). In Mobile IPv4 the
security requirements are provided by its own security mechanisms for
each function, based on statically configured mobility security
associations.
In mobile IPv6 a mechanism is provided to support bidirectional (i.e.,
packets that the router sends are reaching the Mobile Node, and packets
that the Mobile Node sends are reaching the router) confirmation of a
Mobile Node's ability to communicate with its default router in its current
location. This bidirectional confirmation can be used to detect the black
hole situation, where the link to the router does not work equally well in
both directions. In contrast, Mobile IPv4 does not support bidirectional
confirmation, but only the forward direction (packets from the router are
reaching the Mobile Node) is confirmed, and therefore the black hole
situation may not be detected.
Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 use the source routing feature. This feature makes
it possible for a Correspondent Host to send packets to a Mobile Node
while it is away from its home network using an IPv6 Routing header
rather than IP encapsulation, whereas Mobile IPv4 must use
encapsulation for all packets. However, in Mobile IPv6 the Home Agents
are allowed to use encapsulation for tunneling. This is required, during
the initiation phase of the binding update procedure.

43

 In Mobile IPv6 the packets which arrive at the home network and are
destined for a Mobile Node that is away from home, are intercepted by
the Mobile Nodes Home Agent using IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
[RFC1970] rather than ARP [RFC826] as is used in Mobile IPv4.
 The source routing (routing header) feature in Mobile IPv6 removes the
need to manage "tunnel soft state", which was required in Mobile IPv4
due to limitations in ICMP error procedure for IPv4. In Mobile IPv4 an
ICMP error message that is created due to a failure of delivering an IP
packet to the Care-of Address, will be returned to the home network, but
will may not contain the IP address of the original source of the tunnelled
IP packet. This is solved in the Home Agent by storing the tunneling
information, i.e., which IP packets have been tunnelled to which Care-of
Address, called tunneling soft state.
 In IPv6 a new routing procedure is defined called any-cast. This feature
is used in Mobile IPv6 for the dynamic Home Agent address discovery
mechanism. This mechanism returns one single reply to the Mobile
Node, rather than the corresponding Mobile IPv4 mechanism that used
IPv4 directed broadcast and returned a separate reply from each Home
Agent on the Mobile Node's home sub-network. The Mobile IPv6
mechanism is more efficient and more reliable. This is due to the fact
that only one packet need to be replied to the Mobile Node.
 In Mobile IPv6 an Advertisement Interval option on Router
Advertisements (equivalent to Agent Advertisements in Mobile IPv4) is
defined, that allows a Mobile Node to decide for itself how many Router
Advertisements (Agent Advertisements) it is tolerating to miss before
declaring its current router unreachable.
 All Mobile IPv6 control traffic can be piggybacked on any existing IPv6
packets. This can be accomplished by using the IPv6 destination
options. In contrary, for Mobile IPv4 and its Route Optimisation
extensions, separate UDP packets were required for each control
message.
 In Mobile IPv6 supports Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HIPv6) plus Fast
Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FHIPv6). HMIPv6 is a localized mobility
management proposal that aims to reduce the signaling load due to user
mobility. The mobility management inside the local domain is handled by
a Mobility Anchor Point (MAP). Mobility between separate MAP domains
is handled by MIPv6. Moreover, the HMIPv6 presents the following
advantages: it includes a mechanism to reduce the signaling load in
case of handoffs within the same domain and may improve handoff
performance reducing handoff latency and packet losses since intradomain handoffs are performed locally. However, since the periodic BUs
are not reduced but the ones due to handoffs, the gain depends on the
mobility of the mobile nodes. On the other hand, FHIPv6 protocol
enables mobile nodes to quickly detect that it has moved to a new
subnet by providing the new access point and the associated subnet
prefix information when the mobile node is still connected to its current

44

subnet. For instance, a mobile node may discover available access

points using link-layer specific mechanisms (i.e., a "scan" in WLAN) and
then request subnet information corresponding to one or more of those
discovered access points. The mobile node may do this after performing
router discovery or at any time while connected to its current router.
Moreover, in comparison to Mobile IPv4 protocol, Mobile IPv6 protocol can
provide mobility support that combines the experience gained in the design of
Mobile IPv4 and the new features of the IPv6 protocol. Some of the Mobile IPv4
open issues, i.e., Triangle routing, Mobility routing crossings in an Intranet, RSVP
operation over IP tunnels, Inefficient maintenance of simultaneous bindings,
Ingress filtering, Minimize the number of required trusted entities and
Authentication are partially solved. Most of the solutions provided in Mobile IPv6
are mainly generated for Mobile IPv4. However, it is expected that some of these
(above mentioned) solutions, after some minor modifications, can also be applied
for Mobile IPv6.
The goal for Mobile IPv6 is to provide provides seamless mobility for next
generation mobile services and applications and across several access
technologies such as WCDMA, WiMAX 802.16m, WLAN 802.11m, LTEAdvanced and other 4G access networks. Undoubtedly, Mobile IPv6, along with
fast-handoffs and context transfer mechanisms will be essential for the large
scale deployment of real-time services (such as VoIP) and broadcast services in
4G networks.

2.7.2. IEEE 802.21

The IEEE 802.21 working group was initiated in 2004, and the latest draft
version of the standard was accepted as a new standard by the IEEE-SA
Standards Board in November 2008. The standard was published in January
2009. It is anticipated that actual deployment of the standard will take place at
the earliest in late 20092010. The Figure 2.17 illustrates the progress toward
the IEEE 802.21-2008 standard.

Figure 2.17. Timeline of the IEEE 802.21-2008 Standardization.

IEEE 802.21-2008, also known as Media-Independent Handover (MIH)

Services, features a broad set of properties that meet the requirements of
effective heterogeneous handovers. It allows for transparent service continuity
during handovers by specifying mechanisms to gather and distribute information
from various link types to a handover decision maker. The collected information
comprises timely and consistent notifications about changes in link conditions
and available access networks. We must to emphasize that the scope of IEEE

45

802.21-2008 is restricted to access technology-independent handovers. Intratechnology handovers, handover policies, security mechanisms, media-specific
link layer enhancements to support IEEE 802.21-2008, and Layer 3 (L3) and
upper-layer enhancements are outside the scope of IEEE 802.21-2008.
IEEE 802.21 facilitates a variety of handover methods, including both hard
handovers and soft handovers. A hard handover, also known as "break-beforemake" handover, typically implies an abrupt switch between two access points,
base stations, or, generally speaking, PoAs. Soft handovers require the
establishment of a connection with the target PoA while still routing traffic through
the serving PoA. In soft ("make-before-break") handovers, mobile nodes remain
briefly connected with two PoAs. Note, however, that depending on service
requirements and application traffic patterns, hard handovers may often go
unnoticed. For example, web browsing and audio/video streaming with
prebuffering can be accommodated when handing over between different PoAs
in the range of one network by employing mechanisms that allow transferring the
node connection context from one PoA to another quickly.
The main design elements of the IEEE 802.21 reference model can be
classified into three categories: a framework for enabling transparent service
continuity while handing over between heterogeneous access technologies; a set
of handover-enabling functions; and a set of Service Access Points (SAPs). The
role of the IEEE 802.21 standard within the framework of IEEE and its new
functions is illustrated in Figure 2.18.

Figure 2.18. Illustration of the IEEE 802.21 MIH reference model.

Moreover, the IEEE 802.21 specifies a framework that enables

transparent service continuity while a mobile node switches between
heterogeneous access technologies. The consequences of a particular handover
need to be communicated and considered early in the process and, clearly,
before the handover execution. In soft handovers, it is crucial that service
continuity, during and after the handover, is ensured without any user
intervention. To this end, IEEE 802.21 specifies essential mechanisms to gather
all necessary information required for an affiliation with a new access point
before breaking up the currently used connection. Interactive applications, such
46

as VoIP, are typically the most demanding in terms of handover delays, and highquality VoIP calls can be served only by soft handovers. On the other hand,
video streaming can accommodate hard handovers, as long as the vertical
break-before-make handover delay does not exceed the application buffer
interval delay. In the case of hard handovers, handover preparation signaling can
initiate the connection context transfer from the serving PoA to the target PoA
beforehand. For instance, lack of the required level of QoS support or low
available capacity in a candidate access network may lead the network selecting
entity to prevent a planned handover. On the other hand, for example, increasing
delay, jitter, or packet-loss rates in the currently serving network may degrade
the perceived QoS throughout the network, or only for a particular application,
triggering the mobility manager to start assessing the potential of candidate
target access networks and subsequently initiate an IEEE 802.21-assisted
handover.
Also, IEEE 802.21 allows the reception of dynamic information about the
performance of the serving network and other networks in range. In other words,
IEEE 802.21 provides methods for continuous monitoring of available access
conditions. However, IEEE 802.21 does not specify any methods for collecting
this dynamic information at the link layer.
Furthermore, the EEE 802.21 defines a set of handover-enabling
functions, which are specified with respect to existing network elements in the
protocol stack, and introduces a new logical entity called Media-Independent
Handover Function (MIHF). The MIHF logically resides between the link layer
and the network layer. It provides, among others, abstracted services to entities
residing at the network layer and above, called MIH Users (MIHUs). MIHUs are
anticipated to make handover and link-selection decisions based on their internal
policies, context and the information received from the MIHF. To this end, the
primary role of the MIHF is to assist in handovers and handover decision making
by providing all necessary information to the network selector or mobility
management entities. The latter are responsible for handover decisions
regardless of the entity position in the network. The MIHF is not meant to make
any decisions with respect to network selection.
SAPs with associated primitives between the MIHF and MIHUs
(MIH_SAP) give MIHUs access to the following services that the MIHF provides:

The Media-Independent Event Service (MIES) provides event reporting
about, for example, dynamic changes in link conditions, link status, and
link quality. Events can be both local and remote. Remote events are
obtained from a peer MIHF entity.

The Media-Independent Command Service (MICS) enables MIHUs to
manage and control the parameters related to link behavior and
handovers. MICS provides a set of commands for accomplishing that, as
we will see later in this article. Commands can be both local and remote.
The information obtained with MICS is dynamic.

The Media-Independent Information Service (MIIS) allows MIHUs to
receive static information about the characteristics and services of the
serving network and other available networks in range. This information

47

can be used to assist in making a decision about which handover target to

choose and to make preliminary preparations for a handover.
On the other hand, there is a need for defining a separate technologydependent interface, which is specific to the corresponding media type
supported, between the MIHF and the lower layers (MIH_LINK_SAP). The
primitives associated with the MIH_LINK_SAP enable MIHF to receive timely and
consistent link information and control link operation during handovers. For
example, the currently supported link layers include wired and wireless media
types from the IEEE family of standards (for example, 802.3, 802.11, 802.15, and
802.16), as well as those defined by the Third-Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) and Third-Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2). Besides these,
IEEE 802.21 specifies a media-independent SAP (MIH_NET_SAP), which
provides transport services for Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) MIH message
exchange with remote MIHFs. Functions over the LLC_SAP are not specified in
IEEE 802.21.
Figure 2.19 presents the messages directions of each MIHF service class,
including both local and remote events and commands. The MIHF can subscribe
to particular sets of events from a peer MIHF. Remote commands are initiated by
local MIHUs and are conveyed to the peer MIHF through the local MIHF. Finally,
MIIS information can be obtained through queries to the local database and to
remote Information Servers.

Figure 2.19. MIHF Services.

In order to use and provide MIHF services, MIHF entities need to be

configured appropriately. IEEE 802.21 defines three service management
functions: MIH capability discovery, MIH registration, and MIH event subscription.
MIHF may discover other MIHF entities and their capabilities using the MIH
capability discovery procedure. Depending on the information obtained from this
procedure, the local MIHF can determine which peer MIHFs it should register
with. The MIH capability discovery function uses the MIH protocol (introduced in
the following section) at Layer 2 or Layer 3, and media-specific Layer 2
broadcast messages are allowed. For example, an MIHF can listen to mediaspecific broadcast messages, such as IEEE 802.11 beacons, or mediaindependent Layer 2 MIH_Capability_Discover broadcast messages, because an
MIHF entity residing in the network may announce its existence and capabilities
48

periodically. MIHF can also send MIH_Capability_Discover request messages

using multicast or unicast to detect peer MIHFs in a solicited way. For instance,
MIHF can send a request by unicast for obtaining the capabilities of a specific
IEEE 802.21 network entity. In this case, only the IEEE 802.21 network entity
addressed should respond to these request messages.
MIH registration is a symmetric procedure by which two peer MIHFs
authenticate and can then communicate with each other in a more trusted
manner. After MIH registration is completed, the two peer MIHF entities can
symmetrically request services from their registered peer. Note that MIH
registration is not necessary for obtaining some level of support from a peer
MIHF. However, by registering and authenticating, peer MIHFs typically will get
access to much more extensive information. That is, although the MIHF residing
on the mobile node may be able to access information services from the networkside MIHFs without registration and authentication, the available information may
be only a subset of that provided after authenticating.
Finally, MIH event subscription enables MIHUs to subscribe to a particular
set of events provided by MIES from the local or peer MIHF. Event subscription
from a peer MIHF requires registration and knowledge about its capabilities. The
subscription contains only the list of events the MIHU is interested in. Note that
event sources may not be necessarily capable of providing all events that the
subscriber is interested in subscribing to. Each subscription request is matched
by a confirmation message from the event source indicating the events approved
for subscription.
The Media-Independent Handover Protocol (MIHP) specifies the rules and
services for unified communication between peer MIHFs. The protocol defines
the message format, header, and encoding format and is meant to be used solely
for communicating with peer MIHF entities. For internal communication no
particular encoding is dictated.
MIH protocol messages can be carried over Layer 2 management frames,
Layer 2 data frames, or over Layer 3/IP transport. Note that cellular technologies
do not provide Layer 2 transport without changes in their protocol stack.
The MIH protocol messages, or frames, comprise a header part and a
TLV-encoded payload part. The MIHF frame header consists of eight octets.
Figure 2.20 illustrates the MIH protocol header indicating the corresponding bit
length for each field in parentheses.

Figure 2.20. Illustration of the MIH Protocol Header.

49

The Version field in the MIH frame header specifies the version of the MIH
protocol used. The two Ack fields are for acknowledgement purposes and are
discussed later in the article. The Unauthenticated Information Request (UIR)
flag indicates that the response message may be sent with a limited length
because of the nature of unauthenticated message exchange. Recall that when
an MIHF issues requests without registering first with its peer, it may receive less
information than if it had registered earlier. If this flag is set, then the information
included in the response message may not reflect the complete information
available to registered MIHFs. The More Fragments (M) and Fragment Number
(FN) fields are used in message fragmentation.
The MIH Message ID field comprises three subfields. The Service
Identifier (SID) field indicates the MIHF service class (MIES, MICS, MIIS, or
Service Management) that this message belongs to. The Operation code
(Opcode) specifies whether the message is a request, response, or indication.
The Action Identifier (AID) is related with and scoped by the SID. For instance, if
the SID indicates MIES, AID points to the actual event type. The Variable Load
Length field contains the total length of the variable, TLV-encoded payload
carried by this message frame.
The MIH protocol messages use the Transaction ID and MIHF ID fields as
identifiers, but only the former is included in the header. The Transaction ID field
is an identifier that helps to match each request, response, or indication message
with its acknowledgement.
The payload part contains service-specific messages encoded in TLV
format. The first two TLVs in the payload part (not shown in Figure 2.20) should
be the Source Identifier and Destination Identifier, which are both the same data
type as the MIHF ID. Every MIHF must have a unique MIHF ID, which may be
assigned to it at configuration time. The MIHF ID shall be invariant and could be,
for example, a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) or Network Access
Identifier (NAI). The MIHF ID is used during the MIH registration phase and is
appended to the payload part of every message requiring endpoint identification.
In broadcast messages, the Destination Identifier TLV is defined as zero length.
The Figure 2.21 shows the message structure consisting of the MIH
Protocol header, source and destination identifiers, and service-specific TLVs. In
TLV encoding, the Type field (1 octet) denotes the parameter type, the Length
field (variable octets) indicates the length of the Value field, and the Value field
(variable octets) carries the actual value of the parameter.

Figure 2.21. The MIH Protocol Frame Structure.

Acknowledging MIH messages is not mandatory. Still, the MIH protocol

does support the use of acknowledgements to ensure reliable message
exchange. The sender MIHF can set the ACK-Req field to instruct the receiver to

50

return an acknowledgement with ACK-Rsp bit set. The MIH Message ID and
Transaction ID must be the same in the request message and its
acknowledgement. An acknowledgement message may carry no payload. Note,
however, that despite employing these two ID fields, the MIH protocol does not
specify any further mechanisms for reliable authentication or shielding message
exchanges from third parties.
Finally, we anticipate that its adoption in the near future will allow for better
network resource usage and permit multi-access devices to select the network
access best suited for their communication needs. After motivating the needs for
a standard to cope with heterogeneous network handovers, we introduced the
IEEE 802.21 Reference Model and the MIH Services. We briefly presented the
MIH Protocol, although a more thorough description calls for a separate overview
article.
We expect that in the future, when IEEE 802.21 MIH is widely deployed,
there will be significant efforts to further amend and extend it in order to provide
for even better services. In fact, because security mechanisms are outside the
scope of the base IEEE 802.21 standard, the work on defining a security-related
extension to IEEE 802.21 (IEEE P802.21a) has already begun. Moreover,
another amendment (IEEE P802.21b) that deals with handovers with downlinkonly technologies, such as Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB), has also been
introduced (see: www.ieee802.org/21 for more information about the
amendments). Nevertheless, it remains uncertain whether vendors will stand by
this promising standard and incorporate it in future products and solutions.

51

2.8. 4G regulation: Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced

The Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced are well positioned to drive
the global evolution towards pervasive mobile broadband internet
communications with market acceptance, rich ecosystems, and promising
economies of scale. On the other side, two essentials for a healthy wireless and
mobile broadband technology environment include well-developed technology
standards and a fair market regulatory environment with carefully allocated
spectrum resources.
The shift to 4G (towards Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced) will be
gradual, along with continued operation and coexistence with 2G and 3G
networks and services. As the 4G world materializes it will increasingly do so
based on mobile operators using spectrum across multiple existing and new
spectrum bands. As mobile operators tread the 4G path they will be forced to
focus on using their existing 2G and 3G spectrum resources in different ways
and in different combinations. At the same time, operators are vying for new
spectrum allocations to meet increasing network coverage and capacity
demands dictated by the mobile Internet.
Not all spectrum is equal, it is the sum of the parts spectrum
combinations in different bands that will shape the fortunes of mobile operators.
The operators who succeed in 4G deployment and delivery will be those that can
build and augment sufficient spectrum holdings in both lower and upper
frequency bands. As a consequence vendors must evolve equipment to flexibly
support multi-mode and multi-band functionality so that service providers can
operate efficiently and transparently across bands. Moreover, Figure 2.22
presents a view of the spectrum combinations that will characterize the emerging
4G regulation landscape.

Figure 2.22. Mobile Broadband Internet and 4G radio spectrum combinations.

At the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference 2007 (WRC-07), the

members addressed radio spectrum for upcoming 4G systems (IMT-Advanced).

52

The new spectrum is spread across five additional bands in portions of the 400 to
700 MHz and 2.3, 2.5, and 3.5 GHz bands 4G systems and their backward
compatibility to 3G will force multiple band and multiple front end products to
meet the diverse requirements of regional carriers. The recommendations from
WRC- 07 are included in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9. The frequencies added for 4G services from WRC-07

The bands below 1 GHz are a cost-effective way to provide IMT services
in sparsely populated regions in developed and undeveloped countries. The
bands above 1 GHz are preferable for providing continuous blocks of spectrum
for future broadband wireless systems such as IMT-Advanced (4G). Among the
bands being proposed, the newly identified 3.4 to 3.6 GHz band could prove to
be the most attractive for implementing 4G bands in the future. It should be
apparent that whatever solutions we bring to the market, the ability to be able to
customize and adapt the front end for a particular combination of frequencies will
be a worthwhile investment due to the complexities involved. In Figure 2.23 one
view of possible band combinations required in mobile devices and embedded
modems are given. Different analysis may come to different weightings for
regional splits, but the daunting number of band combinations should not be lost.

Figure 2.23. 3G/4G Band Combination Forecast by Volume

53

Furthermore, successful conclusions were reached on over 30 separate

items on the latest WRC-12 (mentioned in the previous module), even if in some
cases that conclusion was not to change the Radio Regulations. The headlines
have been taken by the decision, following pressure from African and Arab
countries, to extend the mobile radio allocation in Europe, Africa and the Middle
East down from 790 MHz to (provisionally) 694 MHz, and identify this allocation
for 4G. The formal agenda of the WRC did not allow for this and European
countries were not ready to take that decision. The resulting compromise is a
very unusual arrangement. The new allocation, by way of a WRC Resolution,
becomes effective from the end of the next WRC (scheduled for late 2015) and
will be subject to technical and regulatory conditions to be developed in the
intervening period.
However, making a new allocation to mobile does not necessarily mean
that the band will become available. Regulators will face major policy decisions
on the relative priority of mobile and broadcasting 4G services. Even if the
decisions come down in favor of mobile, it will need the concerted effort of a
number of countries within a region to bring about substantial change. Where
there are existing broadcasting services as throughout Europe these would
need to be re-arranged to clear the spectrum. This would require difficult
negotiations to be held with neighboring countries. And there will be significant
cross-border constraints imposed by those countries that keep broadcasting and
other services in the band (including aeronautical radars in some places). So it
remains to be seen for how long the apparent success of the WRC remains only
on paper. The writing however is on the wall, and many will not want to see
Europe being the only part of the world without access to this valuable resource
for mobile services.
Another contentious issue at WRC-12 concerned changes to the
regulations governing satellite networks using the geostationary orbit. The
conference considered many proposals aimed at reducing the number of paper
satellites, i.e. internationally coordinated orbital slots for systems that are not
subsequently brought into use. There was also debate on ensuring equitable
access to the geostationary orbit. The eventual outcome was some clarification
of the definitions of bringing into use and other procedures. These issues did
not attract so many headlines, and the detailed changes agreed will require
carefully analysis to reveal the real consequences, but the potential impact on
those in the satellite communications business could be very considerable
indeed. That was clear from the intense discussions and close attention paid to
these issues. Finally WRC-12 established the agenda for the next WRC in 2015.
Included in a long list of issues is a wide-ranging item to consider the growing
spectrum demands of mobile broadband internet. This does not specify any
potential target bands for new 4G spectrum and so will lead to a great deal of
work and close scrutiny by all of the communities that could be affected
broadcasting, satellite, navigation etc. An illustration of all WRC-12 issues is
given in Figure 2.24.

54

Figure 2.24. Illustration of the WRC-12 Issues.

Globally, provisioned network capacity to handle the explosive growth of

broadband data traffic is forecasted to increase by forty times between 2010 and
2015. As operators evolve towards meeting increasing capacity demands and
less are coverage limited, narrow band allocations in lower frequency ranges will
attract a lower market premium price than has been the case in the past. This is
not to imply that lower frequencies are no longer valuable. However, their
optimized use will be in combination with higher band frequencies such as within
the coveted 2.6 GHz range, where significant bandwidth resources are being
availed. There is a discernable trend of regulators moving to combined spectrum
allocation models. For example, Germanys auction of 358.8 MHz of spectrum
across 4 bands 800 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz and 2.5 GHz concluded in
May 2010. There are numerous other cases where simultaneous allocation of
spectrum across multiple bands is under consideration including Jordan, which is
examining permission for 3G service delivery at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz. The
regulator is also consulting on future allocations at 800 MHz, 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz,
and 1785-1805 MHz and re-banding at 3.5 GHz and 3.6 GHz. In Switzerland
there are plans to reallocate and newly assign spectrum across multiple bands:
800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz and 2.5 GHz.
However, regardless of the spectrum allocation formats simultaneous or
sequential - spectrum reform requires planning for the allocation and reassignment of spectrum across multiple bands. This is irrespective of license
renewal dates, new licensing timeframes or the availability of new spectrum for
mobile services. A detailed spectrum reform roadmap will recognize the
interdependencies between different spectrum bands and increase the level of
certainty for operators in understanding how much spectrum is prospectively
available, under what conditions, and in which bands.

55

Before regulators embark on either spectrum reform or the allocation of

new 4G spectrum sources suitable for mobile services, a granular understanding
of the status quo is critical. Where a registry of spectrum distribution and use is
not in place this action becomes an urgent priority. Such a spectrum audit must
take account of spectrum that is used or reserved for public authorities along with
resources allocated for commercial purposes other than communications.
Finally we can conclude that, the spectrum reform is a priority globally.
This is driven in large part by the burgeoning of mobile broadband and the
progression towards 4G (Mobile WiMAX and LTE/LTE-Advanced). Greater
regulatory certainty around band re-planning and the structure of new spectrum
allocations is demanded as operators seek a firm basis upon which to assess
future bandwidth requirements and how they can be met. Rearrangement of
current bands allocated to mobile services and the release of unallocated
spectrum will present different challenges and degrees of challenges in different
nations. However, at the very least, all nations need to move to auditing
spectrum distribution and use across multiple bands and public and private
sector players. This view of the status quo then provides the basis for band replanning as deemed necessary and the development of approaches to the
allocation of vacated or new spectrum. Regulators have an urgent required to
develop a multi-band plan-irrespective of existing license expiry dates and the
timing of availability of new spectrum earmarked for mobile services.
Regulators are confronted with a daunting set of legacy issues that need
to be addressed, along with priorities for 4G spectrum reform priorities and the
need to set critical conditions related to new spectrum allocations. As 4G
spectrum agendas are developed, these often overlapping issues, priorities and
policy approaches must all be considered.

56

2.9. Business potential of Mobile WiMAX

A few years ago, the technology promised to change the economics of
Internet access by providing faster, more efficient broadband service over
unprecedented distances and growing into a ubiquitous open wireless network.
Despite the challenges it has faced in reaching these ambitious goals, Mobile
WiMAX has several strengths that make it a viable option to alternative
technologies. Therefore, business technology decision makers would be wise not
to dismiss Mobile WiMAX.
As we can recognize, Mobile WiMAX is not a service which would fit in the
shoes of or replace any previously available services or technologies. It has
capabilities, by keeping the users connected at high bit rates of, say, 1Mbps
each, a new ecosystem of applications space, which is beyond the domain of
existing cellular mobile, wireless, or fixed wireless technologies. The operators
venturing out on WiMAX need to recognize this potential and not be content with
the traditional revenue streams, but to create new services, new domains of
applications which not only attract users but also generate entirely new sources
of revenue. Hence the answer to the question Is there is business case for
Mobile WiMAX? is Yes; traditional services such as VoIP, broadband, and data
links alone make it viable in most situations. But operators can create a bigger
business opportunity by entering the domain of community-based services such
as instant messaging, pres- ence, active directories, video and audio blogging
with IMPS, TV broadcast and multicast services, video on demand and push
video, music downloads, RSS feeds to mobile devices, and mobile broadband. In
most cases, this will require the operators to venture into areas which are
multidisciplinary, such as design of mobile devices, software clients, and network
architectures that enable them to step out of legacy TDM-based networks. Many
developing countries and rural communities everywhere are today bereft of any
reliable broadband connectivity and nothing is on the horizon in the near term. It
is no surprise, therefore, that some of the major installations have become
operational in these locales and more are on the way.
Furthermore, we can clearly say that there can be multiple business
models for the introduction of both Fixed WiMAX and Mobile WiMAX services. By
providing a wide coverage, instantly available connectivity, with QoS and
security, it is an enabler for many applications, which would otherwise be
unviable with wire-line connectivity. Many of the applications which today use
satellite VSAT networks (for want of better wireless technologies) can now
migrate to WiMAX. Examples of applications that can be implemented using
WiMAX are:
 Private networks (bank ATMs, retail, remote display TV screens, etc.)
 Video surveillance networks, public safety services
 Tracking systems
 Small business data services (ADSLequivalents)
 Personal broadband
 Mobile video multicast

57

 Remote WiFi hotspot enabling

 VoIPphone booths, video phones
 Satellite news gathering for news, weather, reality, and current affairs
channels
 User-generated content with high resolution
These services can be classified into different categories based on
requirements for bandwidth, latency, and jitter. These values are important as the
scheduling of service flows in Mobile WiMAX takes into account these
requirements.
The model used would depend on the territories where such deployment
is done, the local regulations, and the existing infrastructure for
telecommunications and broadband services. Any deployments will depend on
the resources available and their costs such as licensed spectrum, which we
discuss in the next section. In some cases, such resources may actually permit
or limit the capability of an operator to offer such services.
On the other side, the costing of resources is an important driver of any
business plan. As in the case of any wireless technology, the ownership and
costs of licensed spectrum are the factors which have a major bearing on the
viability of a Mobile WiMAX network. Of course, it is also possible to use
unlicensed spectrum with IEEE 802.16-2004 technology, and this indeed is an
enabler of WiMAX connectivity in rural areas with low attendant costs. Moreover,
the use of unlicensed spectrum in urban areas has many limitations and a
commercial service is better provided with licensed spectrum.
Broadband spectrum in most countries is now priced attractively in order
to promote the growth of wireless access and is also more easily available than
the spectrum for 3G technologies, which is a competitor in some ways for the
broadband-based services. For example, in India, the WiMAX-licensed slots (27MHz for FDD and 7MHz for TDD) were allocated in the 3.33.4GHz band on a
first come first-served basis. The slots now stand allotted to over 20 operators in
different parts of the country. The spectrum charges (called royalty) works out to
$1800 per 7MHz TDD spectrum channel for each link of up to 25 Km. Thus for a
base station with three sectors, the cost is $5400 per annum. A city with 20 base
stations would need $108 000 as spectrum charges. Spectrum in the 2.4GHz
band (2.4692.69) for Mobile WiMAX is planned to be allotted in the near future.
In the USA, the bulk of the spectrum in the 2.5GHz band is held by Sprint
and Clearwire. The 2.3 GHz licensed and 5GHz unlicensed bands can be used
currently, before the auction of the 700MHz bands in 2008makes available
additional capacity. There are different criteria for considering the spectrum
costs. One method is cost of spectrum per base station, as used in some
countries. In other cases, the spectrum is allocated across various regions. A
company needs to get a license for all the regions in order to cover the entire
country. For example, in Germany, licenses for 28 regions were auctioned for 56
million Euros to three companies (nationwide) and some regional licensees. The
licenses were for 21MHz each or 4 channels of 5MHz to each licensee or 12
channels nationwide. This gives a figure of about 4.5 million Euros per 5MHz
(FDD) for 28 regions ($0.5 per person based on a population of 8.5 million).

58

Assuming that such coverage requires 5000 base stations, the cost per base
station for 5MHz works out to $900per base station or $1800for 10MHz.
In Japan, the spectrum is allotted based on a pricing of $500,000 per MHz
for the whole of Japan. This works out to $2.5million per year for the entire
country (10 million population) for 5MHz or $0.25 per individual covered per year.
Recognizing that there are large variations in cost to reckon with, we have,
however, taken a figure of $2000 per base station per month as the spectrum
cost per 10MHz, with a coverage of 50sq km for the business case recognizing
that any higher costs will need to be offset by higher priced offerings.
Furthermore, with data being the primary offering in some business plans,
the cost of internet bandwidth is also an important factor. Internet bandwidth is
priced in the range of $3501000 per Mbps per month for backbone connectivity.
The prices in the lower range of $350 are in the United States, while higher
prices such as $1000 prevail in some Asian and African countries. These prices
are based on DS3 (45Mbps)-derived pricings.
The cost of the CPE is an important consideration for a viable business. It
is also important to identify and validate the type of CPEs which will be used in a
given network even though all the devices conforming to the WiMAX Forum
approved profiles and with certified equipment are expected to be able to
operate. The CPE devices which have initially become available are for the datacentric applications and may consist of either an outdoor unit mounted with the
antennas or an indoor unit with inbuilt antennas such as a WiMAX mobile
handset. A typical crash of the CPE prices, which follows a large volume growth,
is yet to be witnessed in the Mobile WiMAX arena. Hence, CPEs with prices in
the $200400 range are the norm.
Moreover, let we see something about the key suppliers of Mobile WiMAX
network equipment. In the main, the infrastructure vendors that remain most
committed to Mobile WiMAX are those that have managed to attract the majority
of Mobile WiMAX contracts. The top Mobile WiMAX players include: Motorola,
Samsung, Huawei, Alvarion, ZTE and Alcatel-Lucent. In contrast, Nortel simply
exited the business, while Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) finally decided to
resell Alvarions Mobile WiMAX solutions instead of relying on in-house systems
as initially planned. However, there may not be enough room for all of todays
WiMAX infrastructure vendors in the future. Over a dozen companies are
currently competing for contracts, yet even the much larger UMTS/HSPA
infrastructure market is currently dominated by just four players Ericsson, NSN,
Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei). All the main vendors with ambitions in Mobile
WiMAX promote their end-to-end capabilities - from network infrastructure to
end-user devices, and from systems integration services to applications.
However, the key difference between the vendors is the extent to which they rely
on in-house development and capabilities. When a technology is new (such as
was the case with Mobile WiMAX three to four years ago), in-house end-to-end
capabilities are a strong competitive advantage. These capabilities help to
ensure that customers have good levels of system stability, resulting in a better
end-user experience.

59

This is one of the factors behind early Mobile WiMAX contracts such as
that for Sprint going to end-to-end providers such as Motorola and Samsung
(see our interview on page 4 for more details). These contracts, in turn, helped to
establish these vendors as early market leaders. However, given the fact that
Mobile WiMAX is maturing (and more certified interoperable products from a
variety of vendors are now available) this advantage is eroding over time.
Among service providers, one of the original key market drivers for
WiMAX was the strong belief that WiMAX chips would follow the same
evolutionary path as WiFi. Therefore, they would eventually be built into the
majority of laptops. For service providers, the intended ubiquity of WiMAX would
mean lower costs, thus less need for subsidization and a wider potential
customer base. Unfortunately, the reality has been quite different. At the peak of
the hype surrounding WiMAX, embedded laptops were expected by 2007 with
volumes ramping up to achieve high market penetration quickly. However, the
first laptops with embedded WiMAX are only now coming to the market, and in
limited numbers. Nonetheless, several device vendors have recently reported
positive signs of growing WiMAX demand. Chipset supplier Sequans has
announced that it shipped its millionth WiMAX chipset in June 2009, while
Beceem shipped more than 1 million WiMAX terminal chips in Q3 2009 alone.
On the device side, Motorola announced at the 4G World event in September
2009 that it had shipped its millionth WiMAX end-user device. Several industry
sources have also confirmed a rapid decrease in mobile WiMAX device prices.
Price points as low as $50 for a USB modem have been mentioned in relation to
upcoming WiMAX projects in India.
A number of key market opportunities in emerging markets remain open to
mobile WiMAX, most notably in India. The reasons are the following:
 Untapped demand exists today that cannot be met by fixed alternatives.
This means that wireless operators using WiMAX can avoid a host of
challenges faced by their fixed-line rivals trying to penetrate these areas,
such as the high cost of laying cables. For example, Yota in Russia looks
like the success story the WiMAX community has been long awaiting. In a
market where broadband penetration is low and 3G is just beginning roll out,
the operator, after only three months of operation, has attracted more than
100,000 subscribers in just four cities.
 A number of mobile operators in emerging markets (even those with 3G
spectrum) may consider mobile WiMAX as a better alternative to DSL in
rural areas than HSPA, due to potential spectrum capacity constraints.
Mobilink in Pakistan and Globe Telecom in the Philippines are good
examples of this phenomenon.
Therefore, the outlook for mobile WiMAX depends heavily on its success
in penetrating emerging markets. As Figure 2.25 illustrates, by 2014 the majority
of Mobile WiMAX connections are expected to come from such markets.
On the other hand, Mobile WiMAX has applications in many other areas,
each of which can be a standalone business by itself. This includes applications
such as rural connectivity and VoIP, providing rural broadband over large areas,
providing dedicated networks for special applications such as security, data

60

gathering networks, bank networks, and many others. Owing to the large and
reliable coverage it replaces many applications which were earlier provided using
satellites. However, the biggest opportunity in the near term is to use these either
for enriching legacy applications for high-quality triple-play services or to provide
multicast video and on-demand services (VoD) for mobile devices. In the
medium to long term, a new ecosystem with open architecture mobile devices
paralleling the cellular mobile networks, but without the legacy architectures and
proprietary elements, is on the horizon. New players not currently owning
telecom networks are expected to take this initiative.

Figure 2.25. Worldwide Mobile WiMAX Connection Forecasts.

Overall, competing head-to-head with existing players and technologies

requires deep pockets to expand the coverage footprint, while at the same time
spending heavily on marketing. In order to focus entirely on services, some
WiMAX operators, like Sprint, have decided to opt for an approach more akin to
that of a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) model.
Therefore, it is likely that Mobile WiMAX will remain a niche technology in
most developed markets. The greatest opportunities exist in the USA and
advanced markets of Asia. However, in all cases, the availability of the right
spectrum at the right price will be critical.

61

References
[1] Roger B. Marks, "IEEE STANDARD 802.16 FOR GLOBAL BROADBAND
WIRELESS ACCESS", Session: The Future of Wireless, ITU Telecom World
2003, Geneva, Switzerland, 12-18 October 2003.
[2] IEEE Computer Society and the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques
Society: IEEE Std 802.16m-2011 Standard for local and metropolitan area
networks, 2011.
[2] Chris Thomas, Raj Jain, 802.16m and WiMAX Release 2.0, 2010.
[3] Yaghoobi, Hassan, "Mobile WiMAX Update and IEEE 802.16m," IEEE, 2009.
[4] IEEE 802.11n-2009Amendment 5: Enhancements for Higher Throughput.
IEEE-SA. 29 October 2009.
[5] Broadcom corporation,
Technology, April 2006.

802.11n:

Next-Generation

Wireless

LAN

[6] A. Bacioccola, C. Cicconetti, C. Eklund, L. Lenzini, Z. Li, E. Mingozzi, "IEEE

802.16: History, Status and Future Trends", Computer Communications, Volume
33, Issue 2, Pages 113-123, 15 February 2010.
[7] Thomas Paul and Tokunbo Ogunfunmi , Wireless LAN Comes of Age:
Understanding the IEEE 802.11n Amendment, IEEE Circuits and Systems
Magazine Vol. 8(1), pp. 28-54, 2008.
[8] Srinivasan, Roshni (ed), Hamiti, Shkumbin (ed), "IEEE 802.16m System
Description Document (SDD)," IEEE 802.16 Task Group m, September 2009.
[9] Shantanu Pathak and Shagun Batra, "Next Generation 4G WiMAX Networks IEEE 802.16 Standard", Sundarapandian et al. (Eds), pp. 507518, CS & ITCSCP 2012
[10] Bjoern Dusza, Christoph Ide and Christian Wietfeld, "A Measurement Based
Energy Model for IEEE 802.16e Mobile WiMAX Devices", IEEE 75th VTC 2012 Spring.
[11] IEEE Std 802.16m-2011, (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.16-2009), IEEE 3
Park Avenue, NY, USA, 6 May 2011.
[12] IEEE Computer Society and the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques
Society: IEEE Std 802.16m-2011 Standard for local and metropolitan area
networks, 2011.
[13] Chris Thomas, Raj Jain, 802.16m and WiMAX Release 2.0, 2010.
[14] Yaghoobi, Hassan, "Mobile WiMAX Update and IEEE 802.16m," IEEE,
March 2009.
[15] Srinivasan, Roshni (ed), Hamiti, Shkumbin (ed), "IEEE 802.16m System
Description Document (SDD)," IEEE 802.16 Task Group m, September 2009.
[16] http://www.beyond4g.org/mimo-schemes-in-16m-wimax-2-0
62

[17] PicoChip, The Case for Home Base Stations, Apr. 2007.
[18] ABI Research, Femtocell Research Service, 2nd qtr., 2007.
[19] Shu-ping Yeh and Shilpa Talwar, "WiMAX Femtocells: A Perspective on
Network Architecture, Capacity, and Coverage", IEEE Communications
Magazine, pp.:58-65, October 2008.
[20] Tara A. Yahiya and Hakima Chaouchi, On the Integration of LTE and Mobile
WiMAXNetworks," 19th Intrnational Confe-rence on Computer communication
and Networks, April 2010.
[21] Shyam S. Wagle, Minesh Ade, and M. Ghazanfar Ullah, "Network Transition
from WiMAX to LTE", Journal of Computing, VOL 3, ISSUE 1, January 2011,
ISSN 2151-9617, pp.:66-70.
[22] Perkins, C., E., Mobile IP, IEEE Communications Magazine, May 1997.
[23] RFC 3344: IP Mobility Support for IPv4.
[24] RFC 3775: Mobility Support in IPv6.
[25] RFC 4140: Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6).
[26] RFC 4068: Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6.
[27] RFC2002: IP Mobility Support.
[28]http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_122/122_ieee.html
[29] A. de la Oliva, and alt. "A case study: IEEE 802.21 enabled mobile terminals
for optimized WLAN/3G handovers", Mobile Computing and Communication
Review, Vol. 11, No.2, April 2007.
[30] Antonio de la Oliva, Telemaco Melia, Albert Banchs, Ignacio Soto and Albert
Vidal, "IEEE 802.21 (Media Independent Handover services) Overview", IEEE
Wireless Communication, Volume 15, Issue 4, August 2008.
[31] Doug Gray, "Mobile WiMAX: A Performance and Comparative Summary",
WiMAX Forum, September 2006.
[32]https://itunews.itu.int/En/2061-World-Radiocommunication-Conference2012.note.aspx
[33]http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/index.asp?category=conferences&rlink=wrc12&lang=en&general-information=1
[34]http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/endata/magazine/ztetechnologies/2011/no1/articles/
201101/t20110117_201776.html
[35] http://www.realwireless.biz/2012/02/21/wrc-12-final-update-the-outcome/
[36] http://www.forbescustom.com/TelecomPgs/WimaxP1.html
[37] Amitabh Kumar, "Mobile Broadcasting with WiMAX", Focal Press, ISBN-13:
978-0-240-81040-9, pp.: 508-527, April 7, 2008.

63