[Insert Document Title Here] [IEEE Mentor Presentation Template (Rev. 0)] Document Number: IEEE #####-RR-000r”, per.] Date Submitted: Source: Radu SeleaVoice: BLiNQ * Re: Call for Contributions IEEE Gdoc Base Contribution: If this presentation accompanies a base contribution, cite its document number. Purpose: To provide an overview of NLOS Backhaul requirements Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Copyright Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Copyright Policy. Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and..html#6sect6.html#6.3 Further information is located at and.

Use Cases Two major use cases –Coverage –Capacity Geographic –Urban – Suburban Urban and Suburban Channel Models should be considered applying particulars of Small Cell Backhaul : –Cell Radius different for Urban and Suburban –BS and SS height –Clutter specifics Coverage and capacity can apply to urban and suburban scenarios Many initial deployments might be for coverage. Coverage use case specifics: –Macro ( High Power, strong link budget) cannot reach the area –In suburban case, those areas are most times in low elevation points surrounded by strong foliage –Strong Link Budget required to solve such use case –It is possible to encounter high density of small cells in a limited area Each of those use cases need to be investigated when define requirements

Spectrum Spectrum availability is the main road block for NLOS Small Cell Backhaul Such solution will not become technology of choice unless, it provides high spectral efficiency Link Capacity is not fully relevant in spectrum limited scenario Unlicensed and lightly licensed spectrum will play an important role Relevant is network level spectral efficiency Highly efficient frequency reuse techniques must be implemented –Interference cancellation, alignment, power control and others… –Beam forming, Beam Steering PHY/MAC hooks

Capacity & Link Budget SDMA techniques are required to increase link spectral efficiency It has to be taken into account that SS form factor is limiting (pole ergonomics) –Higher order MIMO should be developed around BS –SS must maximize at least 2 branches MIMO reception ( because of volume limitations, cross polarized antennas might be used most times) Operators require PER better than 10-4 What’s the link budget required to achieve, MIMO at 64 QAM and up with PER < 10-4 in high challenging NLOS locations over a 500 m radius in urban, and over 1 km + in suburban ? – any link budget feature should be considered –If HARQ/ARQ type of technique is involved it need to be fast and efficient as latency requirements are limiting.

Other Requirements Latency < 5 ms PmP is a major differentiating feature as enables scalability and business case –L2 must be low overhead and optimized for small number of SS’s ( 8 to 16 ?) Synchronization support 1588, SynchE –Here we need a very precise timing on frame as such things cannot be transported (over TDD) but regenerated with required accuracy. Self – Install and Self - Organizing capabilities – has traditionally L1/L2 specification as scope, but group needs to provide hooks at L1 and L2 so such features are possible Networking – L2 architecture,similar to Carrier Ethernet suites to purpose.

L1 Considerations There have been many discussions on what’s better PHY employed for this case All variants : OFDMA, SC-FDMA, SC-FDE have their pros and cons If we desire this group to get traction and become the standard for NLOS backhaul, group has to take into account present SoC vendors and their solutions attracting their involvement rather then trying to draft a solution that doesn’t trigger consensus of industry.