Accepted Manuscript

Resource Allocation and Sharing for Heterogeneous Data Collection

over Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies

Vyacheslav Begishev, Vitaly Petrov, Andrey Samuylov,

Dmitri Moltchanov, Sergey Andreev, Yevgeni Koucheryavy,
Konstantin Samouylov

PII: S0140-3664(17)30680-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.01.009
Reference: COMCOM 5634

To appear in: Computer Communications

Received date: 15 June 2017

Revised date: 1 December 2017
Accepted date: 18 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Vyacheslav Begishev, Vitaly Petrov, Andrey Samuylov, Dmitri Moltchanov,
Sergey Andreev, Yevgeni Koucheryavy, Konstantin Samouylov, Resource Allocation and Sharing for
Heterogeneous Data Collection over Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies,
Computer Communications (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.01.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Resource Allocation and Sharing for Heterogeneous Data Collection over

Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies

Vyacheslav Begisheva , Vitaly Petrovb,∗, Andrey Samuylovb , Dmitri Moltchanovb , Sergey Andreevb , Yevgeni
Koucheryavyb , Konstantin Samouylova
a Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
b Tampere University of Technology (TUT), Tampere, Finland

T
Abstract

IP
Tremendous growth in the volumes and diversity of data to be collected in future Internet of Things (IoT) applications
is one of the key challenges for the networking infrastructures as they evolve from 4G+ to true 5G systems. Particu-

CR
larly, ubiquitous deployments of wireless video surveillance cameras force the IoT service providers to support massive
multimedia data transfer together with more ‘conventional’ machine-type communications. Hence, the data services in a
complex IoT network may become heterogeneous, since several categories of traffic need to be supported simultaneously,
each having its own loads, quality-of-service requirements, and radio technology preferences. An emerging example of

US
the latter is the in-band deployment mode of the recently standardized NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT) technology, where
the same spectrum is shared between 3GPP LTE-connected high-end equipment and NB-IoT-connected low-end devices.
However, while all of the necessary technology enablers are already in place, the question of how to share the available
bandwidth efficiently has not been addressed comprehensively. Targeting the indicated challenge, this paper introduces
AN
feasible strategies for resource sharing between the multimedia and sensory data in a hybrid LTE/NB-IoT wireless
deployment as well as compares them within our rigorous analytical methodology. The conducted numerical study
advocates for one of the allocation strategies – dynamic resource sharing with reservation – as the preferred solution for
reliable collection of heterogeneous data in large-scale 5G-grade IoT deployments.
M

1. Introduction In-line with the developments in the big data process-

ing techniques, technologies to collect them from numerous
Collection, storage, and processing of data has always
ED

distributed sources have also enhanced significantly. Start-

remained central in information systems. Since the early
ing from miniature niche systems for wired sensor net-
years of computer science, the volume of exchanged infor-
works, featured by non-standard software and even hard-
mation has been increasing steadily and exceeded 1 PB/year
ware [5], they have evolved into large-scale and standard-
in 1996, 1 EB/year in 2000, and 1 ZB/year in 2016, thus
PT

ized wireless solutions that suit many sensor types and

opening the ‘Zettabyte Era’ [1]. Following this trend, vari-
categories of data to be collected [6–10]. The most suc-
ous solutions for automated data processing have improved
cessful examples of such systems rely on machine-type
significantly: trivial calculating machines from the past
or machine-to-machine communications [11] and include
CE

evolved into intelligent decision-making systems, already

LTE-M, LoRaWAN, GPRS/EDGE-based GSM, SIGFOX,
capable of outperforming humans in many areas, including
and the recently completed NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT) [12].
finance [2], healthcare [3], and entertainment [4]. Capabil-
The latter three of the above are characterized by tens of
ities to process large volumes of unstructured, diverse, and
kilometers of coverage range, high energy-efficiency, and
AC

rapidly varying data, termed big data, rapidly transform

our everyday life and make intelligent decision-making sys-
tems an essential component of the contemporary ICT
landscape.
∗ Corresponding
Author.
∗∗ The publication was supported by the Ministry of Education and
Science of the Russian Federation (project No. 2.882.2017/4.6).
Email addresses: begishev_vo@rudn.university (Vyacheslav
Begishev), vitaly.petrov@tut.fi (Vitaly Petrov),
andrey.samuylov@tut.fi (Andrey Samuylov),
dmitri.moltchanov@tut.fi (Dmitri Moltchanov),
sergey.andreev@tut.fi (Sergey Andreev),
evgeni.kucheryavy@tut.fi (Yevgeni Koucheryavy),
samuylov_ke@rudn.university (Konstantin Samouylov)
low-cost radio design, thus making them technology can-
didates for big data collection in the future Internet of
Things (IoT) landscape [13–16].
Together with higher penetration of low-cost and low-
traffic smart meters and actuators, the forthcoming IoT
systems will also observe the growing impact of multimedia
big data [17], especially those collected by massive video
surveillance systems deployed for security and safety pur-
poses [18, 19]. Located in both publicly-accessible and
restricted areas, the surveillance cameras may deliver to
the big data analytics servers the types of information
that trivial sensors are not capable of producing. Same

Preprint submitted to Elsevier February 13, 2018

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
as smart meters, surveillance cameras may be deployed
across a larger area (e.g., a factory, plant, or city block)
and placed in locations where wired connectivity is not fea-
sible due to technical or economic reasons, such as lamp-
posts, walls, and roofs of buildings. Meanwhile, the exist-
ing 4G and 4G+ machine-type communications solutions
cannot fully support the scalability and reliability require-
ments of such massive video surveillance due to insufficient
capacity for video streaming purposes. Hence, the use of
long-range high-rate (naturally, cellular) wireless technolo-
gies becomes the primary viable option.
The combination of two or more heterogeneous big data
streams is one of the key features in 5G mobile networks,
which increases the intelligence and reliability of decision-
making and, consequently, unleashes the full potential of
the IoT [20, 21]. For instance, intrusion or fire detection
signals reported by a group of smart meters may be im-
mediately cross-verified against the video monitoring infor-
mation. At the same time, the collection of such hetero-
geneous big data poses a number of specific resource man-
agement related challenges, where the reliability of data
streams plays a key role [22]. This need has been recently
recognized by 3GPP with the ratification of a dedicated in-
band deployment mode in LTE Rel. 13 [23–25], where the
“conventional” LTE radio – that can be used for large-
US
AN
scale video surveillance [26] – shares the radio spectrum
with the emerging NB-IoT technology for low-end sensor
traffic [27]. Today, this combination receives significant
support from industry and is predicted to become one of
M
the de-facto solutions for heterogeneous big data collection
in various IoT applications [28–31].
However, even by offering the needed flexibility in how
radio resources may be shared between LTE and NB-IoT
ED
technologies, 3GPP does not provide specific guidelines on
how these resources should be shared. Meanwhile, assum-
ing the limited amounts of radio resources owned by the
IoT service provider, the choice of the best resource allo-
PT
cation strategy for both (i) a smaller number of high-rate
video cameras and (ii) a larger number of low-rate smart
meters will have significant implications on the decision-
CE
making accuracy as well as the overall system performance.
Along these lines, one has to carefully balance the analytics-
centric metrics, such as the session loss probability for in-
dividual data streams, with the network-centric metrics,
AC
such as the radio resource utilization efficiency. This task
is extremely convoluted, since these objectives are inher-
ently conflicting, while the instantaneous values of data
volumes are hard to predict.
In this paper, we target to resolve the above chal-
lenges by contributing an analytical framework for per-
formance modeling of heterogeneous data collection over
a 5G mobile network. Using the developed modeling tool,
we characterize and compare three feasible strategies for
resource allocation and sharing between LTE and NB-IoT
sub-systems, namely, static, dynamic, and dynamic with
reservations. We also illustrate the related scaling laws of
their operation in typical usage scenarios. As a result of
2
our study, we advocate for the third strategy as the most
appropriate in the heterogeneous traffic scenarios as well
as demonstrate how to best parametrize it for particular
IoT traffic patterns.
The main contributions of our work are therefore the
following:
• We demonstrate that static resource sharing between
LTE and NB-IoT is highly sensitive to the offered
traffic load. To achieve the optimal performance,
the allocations need to be dynamically updated ac-
cording to immediate traffic fluctuations. The latter
T
requires precise knowledge of the arrival patterns,
which may not be available in practice;
IP
• We confirm that dynamic resource sharing between
LTE and NB-IoT drastically improves the overall
CR
system performance. However, it does not auto-
matically provide any performance guarantees to the
over-the-top services and may unpredictably degrade
performance, especially when the offered traffic load
across sub-systems is non-uniform;
• We illustrate that the introduction of minimal re-
source guarantees on top of dynamic resource sharing
between LTE and NB-IoT alleviates the problem of
system performance degradation, while keeping the
network-centric metrics at adequate levels.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec-
tion 2, a model of the envisioned IoT system that serves
both NB-IoT and LTE traffic is outlined. The proposed
performance analysis is conducted in Section 3. Numerical
assessment is further summarized in Section 4. Conclu-
sions are drawn in the last section.
2. Proposed System Model
In this section, we first introduce our model of a surveil-
lance operator that establishes heterogeneous monitoring
services in LTE bands by using both LTE and NB-IoT ca-
pabilities. Then, we proceed with formalizing the deploy-
ment and traffic processes, the resource allocation strate-
gies, as well as the metrics of interest. The notation used
in this paper is summarized in Table 1.
2.1. Considered Surveillance Service
In this work, we consider an operator planning its area
surveillance system. The system to be deployed is a hybrid
solution consisting of (i) multiple video cameras to perform
video monitoring, (ii) a large number of sensor nodes for
intrusion and fire detection as well as for temperature and
pressure monitoring, and (iii) big data processing units ca-
pable of detecting certain events by intelligently combining
the streams from both the video cameras and the smart
meters, see Fig. 1.
Since wired or Wi-Fi connectivity is not always avail-
able for the outdoor cameras (e.g., those monitoring large
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dedicated network
spectrum resource Radio resources
with network slicing Data analytics servers

Multimedia streaming LTE

Sensory data NB-IoT

Dynamic separation
Heterogeneous subject to resource
data sources allocation strategy LTE/NB-IoT Operator’s cloud network
base station

T
Figure 1: Considered system design in a nutshell.

The deployment scenario described above presumes shar-

IP
Table 1: Notation used in this paper.
ing of acquired spectrum resources between the two types
Parameter Description of end nodes, surveillance cameras and NB-IoT sensors,
C Number of basic channels thus raising the key question of efficient resource alloca-

S Number of RBs in a cell
c Number of basic channels in a single RB
λ Intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals
λ(1) Intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals per device
NN Number of connected NB-IoT devices
CR
tion. Here, the reliability of both traffic streams becomes
of primary importance since the processing server may sur-
vive without some of the sensed data, but cannot make in-
formed decisions if the entire stream becomes temporarily

US
θ Mean NB-IoT session volume
ν Intensity of LTE session arrivals unavailable (i.e., the amount of received data drops under
ν (1) Intensity of LTE session arrivals per device
NL Number of connected LTE devices
a certain limit). One of the possible examples here is a fire
1/µ Mean LTE session duration detection system, which is deployed across a certain area
ρ = λθ NB-IoT offered traffic load where any false positive alert is extremely costly (e.g., an
AN
a = ν/µ LTE offered traffic load
RN Number of basic channels reserved for NB-IoT industrial factory). Hence, if the processing unit gener-
RL Number of basic channels reserved for LTE ates a fire alert from smoke/temperature sensor readings,
c(m) Number of channels currently occupied by NB-IoT
CL Maximal number of channels allocated for LTE it needs to first cross-check it with the video monitoring
CN Maximal number of channels allocated for NB-IoT channel (video stream from a camera nearby), and only
M

b Number of channels required by one NB-IoT session

d Number of channels required by one LTE session
when confirmed announce the emergency evacuation.
M Maximum number of NB-IoT sessions in RB To address the above issues, we first introduce our sys-
m(t) Number of active NB-IoT sessions at time t tem model and then proceed with formalizing the candi-
n(t) Number of active LTE sessions at time t
date resource allocation and sharing strategies.
ED

X State space of {m(t),n(t),t > 0} process

p(m, n) Probability of having m NB-IoT and n LTE sessions
G(X ) Normalization constant
pN NB-IoT session loss probability
2.2. Deployment and Traffic Processes
pL LTE session loss probability We consider an LTE cell of circular coverage area with
BN , BL Loss sets of NB-IoT/LTE sessions
a base station located in its center. Recall that the cover-
PT

γ A fraction of radio resources allocated for NB-IoT

E[TN ] Mean NB-IoT session duration age radius of the cell for LTE service is much smaller as
E[NN ], E[NL ] Mean number of NB-IoT/LTE sessions compared to the coverage range of NB-IoT service. The
E[bN ], E[bL ] Mean number of occupied channels by NB-IoT/LTE
E[sN ], E[sL ] Mean number of occupied RBs by NB-IoT/LTE entire set of available radio resources is measured in terms
CE

E[bN L ] Mean number of occupied channels by NB-IoT+LTE of its smallest granularity, termed an NB-IoT channel. In
what follows, we name it the basic channel. There are C
NB-IoT channels available in the uplink direction that can
be characterized as C = cS, where S is the number of re-
parking spots), LTE is assumed as a connectivity option
AC

source blocks (RBs) and c is the number of basic channels

for surveillance cameras. Connected sensors and smart
in a single RB [33].
meters are assumed to communicate via NB-IoT as one
There are in total NL connected LTE devices and NN
of the most prominent technologies for long-range IoT ap-
connected NB-IoT devices in the modeled scenario. The
plications that receives global standardization support. In
session arrival process at an LTE device is Poisson in na-
addition, the envisioned combination of radio solutions can
ture with the intensity of ν (1) . Hence, the aggregate LTE
effectively coexist within the same network. Since both
session arrival process is also Poisson having the inten-
technologies operate in the licensed bands, a reliability-
sity of ν = ν (1) NL . Duration of a session is assumed to
oriented service provider may acquire a certain frequency
be distributed exponentially with the mean of 1/µ, while
resource from the network operator via e.g., network slic-
the number of requested basic channels is exactly d. Let
ing mechanisms [32] in order to guarantee uninterrupted
a = ν/µ denote the offered traffic load over LTE. Simi-
and predictable service operation regardless of the actual
larly, NB-IoT sessions arrive according to the Poisson pro-
loading on other operator’s spectrum bands.
cess having the intensity of λ = λ(1) NN , where λ(1) is
3

- NB-IoT - LTE
RN=CN
CN > RN > 0
RL = 0, CL = C
RN = 0, CN = C
RL=CL=C-CN
a) static b) fully dynamic c) dynamic with reservation
Figure 2: Considered resource allocations strategies.
the intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals per an individual
connected device. Each arrival is characterized by an ex-
ponentially distributed data volume with the mean of 1/θ
and requires exactly b basic channels. We also let ρ = λθ
denote the offered traffic load over NB-IoT. Similarly to
the LTE sessions, NB-IoT devices are assumed to remain
static throughout the entire duration of their session.
2.3. Resource Allocation Strategies
The considered resource allocation and sharing strate-
gies between LTE cameras and NB-IoT metering sensors
are illustrated in Fig. 2. Here, the maximum number of
basic channels that can be allocated for NB-IoT and LTE
are CN = C − RL and CL = C − RN , respectively. RL
and RN are the minimum number of channels that are al-
ways available and guaranteed for LTE and NB-IoT traffic,
ED
correspondingly. We compare the following three resource
allocation strategies:
• Static (STAT). This case corresponds to the situa-
tion where the minimum and maximum numbers of
PT
basic channels allocated to NB-IoT and LTE coin-
cide, such that RL = CL and RN = CN . In other
words, all of the resources are strictly divided be-
CE
tween NB-IoT and LTE and no resources are shared
between them.
• Dynamic (DYN). In this case, no minimum amount
of resources are allocated to both NB-IoT and LTE,
AC
i.e., RL = RN = 0. However, the maximum amount
of resources CL = CR = C and the entire set is fully
shared between NB-IoT and LTE traffic.
• Dynamic with reservations (DYNRES). In this case,
the maximum allocations allowed for NB-IoT and
LTE are determined, such that CN = C − RL > 0
and CL = C − RN for some RN > 0, RL > 0, rep-
resenting the minimum amounts of resources exclu-
sively assigned to NB-IoT and LTE traffic, respec-
tively. The rest of the resources are shared between
the two types of traffic.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
- shared
CL > RL > 0
T
Figure 3: Process of sequential resource allocation in LTE cell.
IP
A unique property of the considered model is that the
CR
basic channels are assumed to be scheduled sequentially by
taking into account the features of in-band NB-IoT tech-
nology [34, 35]. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3. Ac-
cordingly, consider a system with no active sessions and
USassume that a new NB-IoT session arrives. In this case,
a new RB is made available to NB-IoT, where the arrival
occupies exactly b NB-IoT basic channels for the exponen-
tially distributed service time. From now on, new NB-IoT
AN
session arrivals occupy the reminding channels in this RB.
Further, upon a new NB-IoT session arrival, if all of the
channels in an RB already scheduled for NB-IoT are oc-
cupied, there is another free RB accessible for the NB-IoT
M
service, this new RB is scheduled for the NB-IoT service.
2.4. Metrics of Interest
In this paper, we assume that the surveillance system
operator targets to balance the service reliability and the
system performance metrics in the uplink direction. In
terms of the service parameters, we consider the session
drop probability – the probability that a new session is
dropped due to the insufficient amount of available radio
resources – for both NB-IoT and LTE sessions. As an
example of the system performance indicator pertaining to
the economic factors of running the service, we concentrate
on the radio resource utilization – the ergodic fraction of
radio resources jointly occupied by both types of service
in frequency–time domain.
3. Performance Evaluation Model
In this section, we formalize and solve the model of
the introduced service. We first represent the number of
NB-IoT and LTE sessions in the system by using a two-
dimensional Markov process. We further demonstrate that
our model allows for an analytical solution in case of the
equilibrium state probabilities. Finally, we proceed with
deriving the metrics of interest. We would also like to
note that the evaluation methodology developed below is
sufficiently flexible to be adjusted to any cellular IoT tech-
nology, should it have radio resource management similar
4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to that employed by LTE. As an example, the LTE plus
NB-IoT deployment studied in this paper may be replaced
with the LTE plus LTE-M [36] or LTE-M plus NB-IoT
setup by adjusting the corresponding numerical parame-
ters.
3.1. Analytical Model of Service
process, {m(t), n(t), t > 0}, over the following state-space
X = {m ≥ 0, n ≥ 0 :
nd ≤ C − RN , c(m) ≤ C − RL , nd + c(m) ≤ C}, (1)
where c(m) = cdbm/M e is the number of basic channels
occupied by the NB-IoT sessions, M is the maximum num-
ber of NB-IoT sessions that can be served in a single RB,
M = dc/be, and bm is the number of basic channels re-
quired to serve these sessions.
It is easy to see that {m(t), n(t), t > 0} is Markov in
nature. The generic state of the state transition diagram
with the associated transition rates is illustrated in Fig. 4.

T
Let p(m, n)(t), {m, n} ∈ X , be the probability of having m

IP
NB-IoT and n LTE sessions in the system at an arbitrary
time t. Due to the lossy nature of the system, there is
always stationary state distribution

CR
p(m, n) = lim p(m, n)(t), {m, n} ∈ X . (2)
t→∞

3.2. Equilibrium State Probabilities

US
Figure 4: Generic state and related transitions of {m(t), n(t), t > 0}.
To derive the local balance equations, consider an ar-
bitrary contour in the state transition diagram demon-
strated in Fig. 5. First, as one may observe, the pro-
cess {m(t), n(t), t > 0} is reversible, which implies that
AN
the stationary state distribution satisfies the local balance
The system described in Section 2 can be modeled by equations
using a mixed service queuing system with two arrival pro- m
cesses having different block-based service disciplines, re- p(m, n) = p(m − 1, n)λ, m > 0, (m, n) ∈ X ,
θ
spectively [37]. Observe that the system permits for losses
M

p(m, n)µn = p(m, n − 1)ν, n > 0, (m, n) ∈ X . (3)

of both NB-IoT and LTE sessions. Note that similar queu-
ing models have been heavily studied in the past in the con- Using the recurrence form in (3), we obtain for m > 0
text of servicing systems with multiple inputs each charac-
ED

terized by different service requirements, see e.g., [38–41]. λθ

p(m, n) = p(m − 1, n) =
The key difference in the model formulated and solved m
ρ
below is in the complex sequential block-based resource = p(m − 1, n) =
allocation strategy. m
ρ2
PT

Let us fist determine the system state. Observe that an = p(m − 2, n) =

LTE session is accepted if at least d out of CL = C − RN m(m − 1)
channels are available at the moment of its arrival. This ρ3
decreases the number of available basic channels by d and = p(m − 3, n) , (4)
m(m − 1)(m − 2)
CE

the number of RBs by dd/ce. Note that for LTE sessions

dd/ce is always an integer, such that dd/ce ≥ 1. Oth- which leads to
erwise, the LTE session is dropped. In case of NB-IoT
arrivals, if upon an arrival of a session there is already an ρm
AC

RB scheduled for NB-IoT and the number of basic chan- p(m, n) = p(0, n) =
m(m − 1)(m − 2) . . . 1
nels in this RB is higher than b, then the NB-IoT session ρm
is accepted to this RB. If the number of available basic = p(0, n), (5)
m!
channels is lower than b and a new RB is available for the
NB-IoT traffic, then this RB is scheduled for NB-IoT and where m > 0, (m, n) ∈ X .
the session is accepted, thus decreasing the number of ba- Using (3), we can also establish p(0, n) as
sic channels in this RB by b. In other cases, the NB-IoT a
session is dropped. p(0, n) = p(0, n − 1) =
n
Let m(t), t > 0, and n(t), t > 0, define the numbers of a2
active NB-IoT and LTE sessions, respectively. Hence, the = p(0, n − 2) = ... =
n(n − 1)
system state of the LTE cell serving both NB-IoT and LTE
an
traffic can be described by a two-dimensional stochastic = p(0, 0), n > 0, (m, n) ∈ X . (6)
n!
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

    [
C − RN RN
BL = m, :0≤m≤
d b
[     
RL C − RN C − (n + 1)d C − nd
(m, n) : ≤n≤ − 1, +1≤m≤ . (17)
d d b b

Substituting (5) and (6) into (3), we produce Define the following division of the state space X

ρm an S
[
p (m, n) = G−1 (X ) , (7) X = Xs , (15)
m! n!

T
s=0
where the normalization constant G(X ) is given by
where Xs = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m) = sc}.

IP
X ρm an The proposed division of the state space is shown in
G(X ) = . (8)
m! n! Fig. 6. Here, we also illustrate the subspaces correspond-
(m,n)∈X
ing to the blocking states of LTE and NB-IoT sessions.

CR
Knowing the stationary state distribution of the system
provided in (7) and (8) and operating over (15), the sought
blocking probabilities specified in (12) follow readily. Par-
ticularly, using (15) the blocking subspaces for the LTE

US sessions can be written as

BL = {(m, n) ∈ X : (n + 1)d > C − c(m)} ∪

AN
∪ {(m, n) ∈ X : (n + 1)d > C − RN } =
S
[
= {X : (n + 1)d > C − max(c(m), RN ), c(m) = sc} =
Figure 5: Existence of local balance equations. s=0
S 
[   
M

C − max(sc, RN ) mb
= X :n+1> , =s =
3.3. Performance Metrics s=0
d c
   [
The drop probability for LTE and NB-IoT may be writ- C − RN RN
= X :n= ,0≤m≤
ED

ten as d b
X X [S    
pN = p(m, n); pL = p(m, n), (12) C − max(sc, RN ) mb
X :n= , s−1< <s ,
(m,n)∈BN (m,n)∈BL s=0
d c
PT

(16)
where the associated sets are
and, finally, the sought subspace takes the form of (17),
BL = {(m, n) ∈ X : d(n + 1) > C − max(c(m), RN )} , thus leading to the following LTE session blocking proba-
CE

BN = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − max(nd, RL )} . bility

(13)
j k
RN
The mean session duration of an NB-IoT sessions is b  
X
AC

P C − RN
pL = p m, +
(m,n)∈X mp(m, n) d
E[TN ] = . (14) m=0
λ (1 − pN ) C−RN
d X−1 b C−nd
Xb c
The calculation of session drop probabilities in (12) + p(m, n). (18)
by directly applying (13) is computationally expensive. R
n= dL m=b
C−(n+1)d
b c+1
The reason is that the state space of the system is rather
large and may reach the value of few tens of thousands.
To alleviate this limitation, we develop a dedicated nu-
merical algorithm based on a recurrent relation between
non-normalized probabilities of macro states that is briefly
sketched below.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

     [        
C − RL c RL C − mb RN C − RL c
BN = ,n : 0 ≤ n ≤ (m, n) : n = , ≤m≤ . (20)
c b d d b c b

n The mean numbers of NB-IoT and LTE sessions are

C − max( sc, RN )
d bCN /bc b[CL −c(m)]/dc
X X X
E[NN ] = mp(m, n) = mp(n, m),
BL (m,n)∈X m=0 n=0
...

bCN /bc b[CL −c(m)]/dc

BN X X X
E[NL ] = np(m, n) = np(m, n). (23)

T
(m,n)∈X m=0 n=0

IP
...

Observe that the number of RBs and basic channels oc-

cupied by LTE can now be calculated directly. However,
1 due to the elastic nature of NB-IoT sessions the mean num-

CR
M
... ... ber of NB-IoT sessions and the mean number of channels
0 m
allocated to the NB-IoT sessions need to be established
s =1 s s=S
separately. Particularly, the mean number of RBs allo-
cated to the NB-IoT sessions is
Figure 6: Proposed division of X by macro states.

Similarly, the subset for NB-IoT session blocking is

US E [sN ] =
j
C−RL

X b
k
$
C−max (d M
X
d
e N)
m c, R
%

lmm
p(m, n). (24)
AN
M
BN = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − nd } ∪ m=0 n=0

∪ {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − RL } = The mean number of basic channels occupied by a sin-
S
[ gle NB-IoT session is provided by
= {X : c(m + 1) > C − max(nd, RL ), c(m) = sc} =
M

$ %
s=0 j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R

     d C−RL

RL C − RL c [ X X lmm b

= X :0≤n≤ ,m = E[bN ] = M p(m, n). (25)

d c b M
ED

m=0 n=0
[S      
C − mb max(RN , C − sc) c
X :n= ,m = , The mean number of RBs allocated to the LTE sessions
s=0
d c b
is
(19) $ %
PT

k C−max(d M ec, RN )
m
j
C−RL
thus eventually yielding (20) and resulting in the following Xb
X
d

expressions for the NB-IoT session blocking probability E [sL ] = n p(m, n). (26)
CE

j k m=0 n=0
RL

X d   
C − RL c The mean number of channels occupied by the LTE
pN = p ,n +
n=0
c b sessions is
j k $ %
AC

C−RL
c
c
b   j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R
X C − mb C−RL d
b
+ p m, . (21) X X
j
R
k d E[bL ] = d n p(m, n). (27)
m= bN
m=0 n=0

The mean session duration in (14) takes the form of The mean of the total number of the basic channels
$ % occupied by both types of traffic is finally delivered as
j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R
E [bN L ] = E [bN ] + E [bL ].
RL d
Pd
P m
M p(m, n)
E[TN ] = n=0 n=0
. (22) 4. Numerical Assessment
λ (1 − pN )
In this section, we apply our developed analytical model
to produce the quantitative and qualitative performance

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.45 4.1. Service Reliability

STAT, γ =0.6
0.40 DYNRES, RL =0.6C We begin with Fig. 7 that presents the camera ses-
Probability of LTE session drop

0.35 STAT, γ =0.8 sion drop probability over LTE as a function of the to-
DYNRES, RL =0.8C tal number of connected NB-IoT sensors in static resource
0.30 DYN
allocation scheme, STAT, where the entire pool of radio
0.25
resources is strictly divided between the two services. For
0.20 this strategy, we introduce a resource division coefficient,
0.15 γ, which characterizes the fraction of resources reserved
0.10 for the NB-IoT service, γ = RN /C. As one may observe,
0.05 the characteristics of STAT strategy depend only on the
0.00 selected γ value, but not on the load from the NB-IoT sen-
0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K sor nodes due to the hard separation between the resources
Number of NB-IoT devices

T
allocated to LTE and NB-IoT services. The reason is that
STAT strategy constructs two independent virtual wireless

IP
Figure 7: LTE drop probability vs. NB-IoT load.
systems: one for the LTE and another one for the NB-IoT
0.35 traffic. While this strategy is the simplest in terms of its
STAT, γ =0.4 implementation, it can be recommended only for systems

CR
Probability of NB-IoT session drop

0.30 DYNRES, RN =0.6C

STAT, γ =0.2
where the average load from all the concurrent services
0.25 DYNRES, RN =0.8C (i) seldom changes in time, (ii) is known in advance, or
DYN (iii) can be well predicted. Such traffic behavior is rarely
0.20 observed in practice.
0.15

0.10
US In contrast, the drop probability in DYN strategy, where
the entire pool of resources is available to both services,
heavily depends on the current load from the NB-IoT seg-
ment. For lower numbers of connected NB-IoT devices,
AN
0.05
DYN strategy clearly outperforms STAT solution in that
0.00 it makes the full band available to the LTE devices in the
0 100 200 300 400
Number of LTE devices absence of the NB-IoT traffic. The growth of the NB-
IoT traffic is naturally followed by an increase in the drop
M

Figure 8: NB-IoT drop probability vs. LTE load.
results for the considered system in a characteristic sce-
ED
probability for DYN strategy as the NB-IoT traffic starts
competing for the resources with the constant load com-
ing from the LTE traffic. Finally, with the extremely large
number of NB-IoT devices, sensor traffic begins dominat-

nario. We compare the properties of the discussed resource
allocation strategies by focusing on the underlying scaling
laws and optimization. Particularly, we first address the
performance of service-related metrics that concentrate on
PT
ing in the shared band. Eventually, the drop probability
becomes higher than that for STAT strategy, regardless of
the chosen resource division coefficient value. Therefore,
DYN resource allocation strategy can be recommended

LTE and NB-IoT session drop probabilities. Then, we ana-
lyze operator-centric resource utilization metrics. Finally,
we demonstrate the process of adjusting the selected strat-
egy by taking into account the requirements of data ana-
CE
for systems where the average loads demanded by each
stream (measured in Hz/s) are comparable. At the same
time, DYN strategy remains an adequate solution for un-

stable systems where the load may fluctuate dramatically

lytics servers. The parameters of the system constructed or when one of the streams is dominating the other(s).
in what follows are summarized in Table 2. Finally, we study the third strategy, DYNRES, where
Table 2: System parameters in numerical analysis. particular sets of resources are exclusively allocated for the
AC

two types of traffic, while the rest is dynamically shared

Par. Description
C Number of basic channels in one LTE cell 100
c Number of basic channels in one RB
RN Number of channels reserved for NB-IoT [0, ..., 100] STAT resource allocation strategy, RL = γC, whereas RN
RL Number of channels reserved for LTE
b Number of channels for NB-IoT session
d Number of channels for LTE session
θ Mean NB-IoT session traffic
1/µ Mean LTE session duration
λ(1) Session arrival rate per NB-IoT device
ν (1) Session arrival rate per LTE device
Value
between them. The values of RL are chosen proportional
4 to the corresponding γ values in the previously considered
[0, ..., 100] is assumed to be zero. In other words, we compare the
1 static and semi-dynamic allocation options in similar con-
4 ditions. Here, we observe that for the low numbers of NB-
100 kbit IoT devices, the characteristics of DYNRES strategy are
10 s
identical to those observed for DYN alternative. However,
10/min.
an increase in the drop probability for DYNRES is much
1/min.
slower than the corresponding trend for DYN. The reason
is that a part of resources that the LTE traffic could have
occupied is protected by the dynamic separation induced
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

100 100
95
Radio resource utilization, %

Radio resource utilization, %

90 90
85
80
80
75
70
STAT, γ =0.6 70 STAT, γ =0.4
DYNRES, RL =0.6C DYNRES, RN .C
=0 6
60 STAT, γ =0.8 65 STAT, γ =0.2
DYNRES, RL =0.8C
60 DYNRES, RN .C
=0 8
DYN DYN
50 55
0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 0 100 200 300 400
Number of NB-IoT devices Number of LTE devices

T
IP
Figure 9: Resource utilization vs. NB-IoT load. Figure 10: Resource utilization vs. LTE load.

by RL . Further, for higher loads of NB-IoT traffic, the
LTE drop probability for DYNRES never climbs higher
than the respective value for the system with STAT strat-
egy. For extremely high numbers of NB-IoT devices, the
curve for DYNRES asymptotically approaches the curve
for STAT, but never crosses it.
Summarizing, the performance of DYNRES strategy
is never worse than that of STAT and DYN strategies.
US
AN
The explanation is in that DYNRES strategy combines
the strengths of the first two, thus behaving similarly to
DYN strategy at low loads and similarly to STAT strat-
egy at high loads. Hence, DYNRES strategy can be rec-
ommended to improve reliability-centric operation. Then,
M
CR
4.2. System-Level Performance
After discussing the reliability performance of the con-
sidered strategies, we focus on the system-centric metrics
and, particularly, the resource utilization.
To this end, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 display the average re-
source utilization for the parameters employed to construct
Fig. 7 and Fig. 9, respectively. Using this parametrization,
we learn the scaling laws of the resource utilization value
versus both LTE and NB-IoT loads. Studying Fig. 9 and
Fig. 10, we observe that the results are opposite to those
reported by Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Here, DYN strategy clearly
outperforms all its competitors due to a more aggressive re-
source allocation mechanism: any available RB is immedi-

the question of interest is appropriate parametrization of ately granted when requested by any type of traffic. Mean-
the selected strategy. while, STAT strategy demonstrates worse performance as
In more detail, we study an orthogonal cut in Fig. 8 the dominating traffic from one service can never be of-
ED

that presents the NB-IoT session drop probability versus
the total number of connected LTE devices. Similarly to
the previous case, we parametrize DYNRES strategy in a
way that the number of resources reserved for NB-IoT in
PT
fered resources reserved for another service, even when the
latter is currently underloaded. Finally, DYNRES strat-
egy demonstrates the median behavior by “cuddling” the
DYN curve at low loads and asymptotically approaching

STAT and DYNRES cases match perfectly. It is important the STAT curve at high loads.
to note that in this case, RN is equal to (1 − γ)C instead
of γC. The values of RL are assumed to be zero. For 4.3. Adjustment of Strategies
such a symmetric case, we observe identical qualitative
CE

behavior with that in Fig. 7. However, there are noticeable
quantitative differences between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The
values of NB-IoT drop probability are orders of magnitude
lower that those observed for LTE. This is mainly due to
AC
Applying our intuition developed in the course of the
first two parts of the conducted numerical study, we now
consider a more practical scenario: setting dynamic thresh-
olds for the discussed traffic types depending on the re-

lower resource demands of an individual NB-IoT session,
hence leading to higher chances of getting served even in
a near fully loaded system. In addition, the way NB-IoT
channels are allocated in the in-band mode also favors the
sensor traffic. Indeed, the LTE sessions occupy an integer
number of RBs, while the NB-IoT traffic acquires a full RB
even though a single session does not occupy it completely.
Therefore, the next several NB-IoT sessions will definitely
be served, since the remaining part of the already allocated
RB cannot be occupied by any LTE stream. Regardless
of the quantitative values for the LTE traffic, DYNRES
system always wins the competition.
9
quirements as defined by the data analytics algorithms.
These requirements are expressed in terms of the LTE and
NB-IoT drop probabilities. For this study, we disregard
DYN strategy as it does not provide the means to achieve
performance guarantees. Hence, we offer a comparison be-
tween STAT and DYNRES strategies.
To parametrize the resource allocation strategies, we
first determine the maximum tolerable level of drop prob-
ability for the LTE and NB-IoT services. Here, we set this
value to 1% for both types of traffic. We then apply our
framework described in Section 3 to determine the mini-
mum and maximum values of γ, γmin , and γmax required
to “protect” the traffic streams from each other. We also
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10-1
10-2
Session drop probability
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7 STAT, LTE session DYNRES, LTE session
STAT, NB-IoT session DYNRES, NB-IoT session
10-8
0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66
STAT strategy LTE resource share
Figure 11: Drop probability vs. resource division coefficient, γ.
set the same resource division coefficients for DYNRES
strategy, such that RL = γmin C, while RN = (1 − γmax )C.
For the selected drop probability thresholds and the cho-
sen stream loads, 50 LTE-connected video cameras and
30K NB-IoT sensors, the resource division coefficient val-
ues are γmin = 0.55 and γmax = 0.7. In other words, 55%
or resources have to be allocated exclusively to the LTE
segment, while 30% more resources are to be “protected”
for the NB-IoT sessions. The question of interest is how to
efficiently share the resources between the γ values, 15%
in our case.
Targeting to answer the above question, we compare
STAT strategy, where γ ∈ [γmin , γmax ] with DYNRES al-
ternative, where the available common resources are dy-
namically shared between the streams depending on their
instantaneous loads. Fig. 11 presents an analytics-centric
ED
study of the drop probabilities for both LTE and NB-IoT
streams, while Fig. 12 focuses on the resource utilization
analysis. Regarding Fig. 11, we notice that DYNRES is
preferred over STAT: there is a very “narrow” operational
PT
regime (γ ≤ 0.56), where NB-IoT drop probability for
STAT is lower than that for DYNRES (0.5·10−6 vs. 10−6 ).
At the same time, this slight advantage is compensated by
a considerable loss in the LTE session drop probability:
CE
10−2 for STAT vs. only 0.5 · 10−3 for DYNRES. Mean-
while, any higher values of γ lead to much worse perfor-
mance of STAT in terms of both probabilities.
Finally, we focus on the resource utilization curves in
AC
the same conditions, as shown by Fig. 12. Here, we ob-
serve that DYNRES clearly outperforms STAT for all of
the allowed values of γ. Despite this fact, the quantitative
difference is not massive and we can still conclude that
DYNRES resource allocation strategy is the best option for
the considered heterogeneous data collection system under
both stable and time-varying loads. With adequate selec-
tion of RL and RN parameters, DYNRES always performs
better than STAT. At the same time, there is a single load
regime, where DYNRES is worse than DYN in terms of
the resource utilization: a clear domination of one type of
traffic over another one, e.g., extreme load from LTE and
46.70
46.65
Radio resource utilization, %
46.60
46.55
46.50
46.45
STAT DYNRES
46.40 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70
0.68 0.70
STAT strategy LTE resource share
T
IP
Figure 12: Resource utilization vs. resource division coefficient, γ.
negligible load from NB-IoT. However, the actual differ-
CR
ence is on the order of few percents and is accompanied
by the considerably higher reliability levels, since the drop
probabilities for DYNRES in such extreme conditions are
an order of magnitude lower than those achievable with
US DYN, see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.
5. Conclusions
AN
In this paper, we studied efficient collection of hetero-
geneous data over an IoT wireless network. We partic-
ularly focused on the simultaneous transmission of high-
rate video streams coming from LTE-connected surveil-
M
lance cameras and low-rate sensory data collected from
numerous NB-IoT-connected devices (considering the in-
band LTE/NB-IoT deployment). We thus developed an
analytical performance evaluation framework that captures
both service- and network-centric metrics of interest as
well as considers the peculiarities of resource sharing be-
tween LTE and NB-IoT transmissions. Finally, by ex-
ample of a surveillance operator implementing a complex
monitoring system for further data processing, we evalu-
ated three alternative resource sharing strategies between
multimedia and sensory data.
Our numerical study demonstrated that the simplest
STAT strategy with complete isolation between services
by strictly assigning resources to them is highly sensitive
to the offered load and requires precise knowledge of the
traffic through dynamic updates to achieve the desired
performance. We also revealed that DYN strategy with
the fully dynamic allocation, on the one hand, achieves
the highest system throughput, but on the other hand,
cannot guarantee any demanded service reliability. Our
preferred dynamic allocation strategy with resource reser-
vation, DYNRES, allows for satisfying the feasible relia-
bility requirements defined by the needs of big data ana-
lytics, while keeping the resource utilization at high lev-
els. The proposed DYNRES strategy is therefore recom-
mended for the forthcoming IoT deployments over 5G mo-
bile networks.
10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The constructed analytical framework additionally of-
fers a baseline model with moderate complexity, which is
open to many possible extensions. Our formulations can
be further developed to incorporate more sophisticated
scenarios, which include but are not limited to the im-
plementation of priorities between the LTE and NB-IoT
connections, the addition of multiple thresholds for the
simultaneous operation of multiple clients with fixed guar-
antees, and the support of multi-tenancy where more than
one IoT operator exploits the shared spectrum. With ap-
propriate parametrization, the present framework can also
be applied to other cellular IoT radio access technologies,
such as LTE-M. Finally, our model can be utilized to ad-
dress various optimization problems that focus on capac-
ity, session continuity, and average data rate maximization
in multi-radio IoT deployments.
References
[1] Cisco, The Zettabyte Era: Trends and analysis, White Paper.
[2] H. V. Jagadish, J. Gehrke, A. Labrinidis, Y. Papakonstantinou,
J. M. Patel, R. Ramakrishnan, C. Shahabi, Big data and its
technical challenges, Communications of the ACM 57 (7) (2014)
86–94.
[3] T. B. Murdoch, A. S. Detsky, The inevitable application of big
data to health care, JAMA 309 (13) (2013) 1351–1352.
US
AN
[4] H. Chen, R. H. L. Chiang, V. C. Storey, Business intelligence
and analytics: From big data to big impact, Management In-
formation Systems Quarterly 36 (4) (2012) 1165–1188.
URL http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2481674.2481683
[5] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, A
survey on sensor networks, IEEE Communications Magazine
M
40 (8) (2002) 102–114.
[6] J. Hosek, P. Masek, S. Andreev, O. Galinina, A. Ometov,
F. Kropfl, W. Wiedermann, Y. Koucheryavy, A SyMPHOnY
of integrated IoT businesses: Closing the gap between avail-
ED
ability and adoption, IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (12)
(2017) 156–164.
[7] P. Jain, P. Hedman, H. Zisimopoulos, Machine Type Commu-
nications in 3GPP systems, IEEE Communications Magazine
50 (11) (2012) 28–35.
PT
[8] K. Zheng, F. Hu, W. Wang, W. Xiang, M. Dohler, Radio
resource allocation in LTE-advanced cellular networks with
M2M communications, IEEE Communications Magazine 50 (7)
(2012) 184–192.
[9] Y. Mehmood, F. Ahmad, I. Yaqoob, A. Adnane, M. Imran,
CE
S. Guizani, Internet-of-Things-Based Smart Cities: Recent ad-
vances and challenges, IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (9)
(2017) 16–24.
[10] V. Petrov, S. Edelev, M. Komar, Y. Koucheryavy, Towards the
era of wireless keys: How the IoT can change authentication
AC
paradigm, in: Proc. of IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things
(WF-IoT), 2014, pp. 51–56.
[11] Machine-Type and other Mobile Data Applications Communi-
cations Enhancements, 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 23.887
(August 2012).
[12] V. Petrov, A. Samuylov, V. Begishev, D. Moltchanov, S. An-
dreev, K. Samouylov, Y. Koucheryavy, Vehicle-based relay as-
sistance for opportunistic crowdsensing over Narrowband IoT
(NB-IoT), IEEE Internet of Things Journal PP (99) (2017) 1–
1.
[13] G. Margelis, R. Piechocki, D. Kaleshi, P. Thomas, Low through-
put networks for the IoT: Lessons learned from industrial imple-
mentations, in: Proc. of the IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet
of Things (WF-IoT), 2015, pp. 181–186.
[14] S. Andreev, O. Galinina, A. Pyattaev, M. Gerasimenko, T. Tir-
ronen, J. Torsner, J. Sachs, M. Dohler, Y. Koucheryavy, Un-
11
derstanding the IoT connectivity landscape: A contemporary
M2M radio technology roadmap, IEEE Communications Mag-
azine 53 (9) (2015) 32–40.
[15] A. Rico-Alvarino, M. Vajapeyam, H. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Blanken-
ship, J. Bergman, T. Tirronen, E. Yavuz, An overview of 3GPP
enhancements on machine to machine communications, IEEE
Communications Magazine 54 (6) (2016) 14–21.
[16] Y. Miao, W. Li, D. Tian, M. S. Hossain, M. F. Alhamid, Nar-
row band Internet of Things: Simulation and modelling, IEEE
Internet of Things Journal PP (99).
[17] W. Zhu, P. Cui, Z. Wang, G. Hua, Multimedia big data com-
puting, IEEE MultiMedia 22 (3) (2015) 96–105.
[18] D. Lyon, Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, con-
sequences, critique, Big Data & Society 1 (2).
[19] F. Bjorklund, O. Svenonius, Video Surveillance and Social Con-
T
trol in a Comparative Perspective, Routledge, 2013.
[20] D. Che, M. Safran, Z. Peng, From big data to big data min-
IP
ing: Challenges, issues, and opportunities, in: Proc. of the 18th
International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced
Applications, 2013, pp. 1–15.
[21] E. Olshannikova, A. Ometov, Y. Koucheryavy, T. Olsson, Visu-
CR
alizing Big Data with augmented and virtual reality: challenges
and research agenda, Journal of Big Data 2 (1) (2015) 22.
[22] R. Zuech, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, R. Wald, Intrusion detection
and Big Heterogeneous Data: a Survey, Journal of Big Data
2 (1) (2015) 3.
[23]
[24]
R. Ratasuk, B. Vejlgaard, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Ghosh, NB-IoT
system for M2M communication, in: Proc. of the IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference (IEEE WCNC),
2016, pp. 1–5.
Study on provision of low-cost Machine-Type Communications
(MTC) User Equipments (UEs) based on LTE, 3GPP Technical
Report (TR) 36.888/r12 (June 2013).
[25] Cellular system support for ultra-low complexity and low
throughput Internet of Things (CIoT), 3GPP Technical Report
(TR) 45.820/r13 (December 2015).
[26] U. Ramachandran, K. Hong, L. Iftode, R. Jain, R. Ku-
mar, K. Rothermel, J. Shin, R. Sivakumar, Large-scale
situation awareness with camera networks and multimodal
sensing, Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (4) (2012) 878–892.
doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2182093.
[27] 3GPP, “Standardization of NB-IOT completed”, http://www.
3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1785-nb_iot_complete,
June 2016.
[28] Nokia, LTE evolution for IoT connectivity, White Paper.
[29] Huawei, NB-IoT: Enabling new business opportunities, White
Paper.
[30] Qualcomm, Paving the path to Narrowband 5G with LTE In-
ternet of Things (IoT), White Paper.
[31] Ericsson, Cellular networks for massive IoT, White Paper.
[32] Nokia, Dynamic end-to-end network slicing for 5G, White Pa-
per.
[33] V. Y. Borodakiy, I. A. Buturlin, I. Gudkova, K. E. Samouylov,
Modelling and analysing a dynamic resource allocation scheme
for M2M traffic in LTE networks, in: Proc. of NEW2AN Con-
ference, 2013, pp. 420–426.
[34] Y. P. E. Wang, X. Lin, A. Adhikary, A. Grovlen,
Y. Sui, Y. Blankenship, J. Bergman, H. S. Raza-
ghi, A primer on 3GPP narrowband Internet of Things,
IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (3) (2017) 117–123.
doi:10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600510CM.
[35] V. Petrov, K. Mikhaylov, D. Moltchanov, S. Andreev, G. Fodor,
J. Torsner, H. Yanikomeroglu, M. J. Juntti, Y. Koucheryavy,
When IoT keeps people in the loop: A path towards a new
global utility, CoRR abs/1703.00541. arXiv:1703.00541.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00541
[36] R. Ratasuk, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Ghosh, B. Vejlgaard, Nar-
rowband LTE-M system for M2M communication, in: Proc. of
IEEE 80th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), 2014.
[37] S. Yashkov, A. Yashkova, Processor sharing: A survey of the
mathematical theory, Automation and Remote Control 68 (9)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(2007) 1662–1731. grated broadband switching system, IEEE Journal on Selected

[38] H. S. Kim, N. B. Shroff, Loss probability calculations and
asymptotic analysis for finite buffer multiplexers, IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking 9 (6) (2001) 755–768.
[39] J. P. Jarvis, Approximating the equilibrium behavior of multi-
server loss systems, Management Science 31 (2) (1985) 235–239.
[40] A.-M. Lin, J. A. Silvester, Priority queueing strategies and
buffer allocation protocols for traffic control at an ATM inte-
Areas in Communications (IEEE JSAC) 9 (9) (1991) 1524–1536.
[41] T. C. Hou, A. K. Wong, Queueing analysis for ATM switching
of mixed continuous-bit-rate and bursty traffic, in: Proc. of the
9th Ninth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
Communication Societies (IEEE INFOCOM), 1990, pp. 660–
667.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

12