All the options that involve Wi-Fi in the unlicensed spectrum may eventually be supported by handsets through software updates, making them available to carriers on equal terms. In the meantime, however, Aricent believes LWA is a technology that
has great potential and capabilities that could make it the eventual winner.
Qualcomm: Making the best use of unlicensed spectrumQualcomm Research
In solving the 1000x challenge, licensed spectrum is the foundation. Equally important is utilizing available unlicensed spectrum. The best way to achieve this is to combine both of them through aggregation. Aggregation brings seamless user experience, better coverage and capacity, as well as the efficiencies of a common unified network. Operators have a choice on how to aggregate, and the decision depends on their current assets and future network plans.
Explore our this presentation and other resources to find out when, and how to choose? How can LTE-U coexist fairly with Wi-Fi in 5GHz unlicensed spectrum? What roles existing/new Wi-Fi, and LTE-U play? And whether it really is a "either or" decision.
Webpage: https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/1000x/spectrum/unlicensed
Download presentation: https://www.qualcomm.com/documents/making-best-use-unlicensed-spectrum-presentation
Sign up for our Technology Newsletter: https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/wireless/signup
Qualcomm is elevating its role as a market leader by bringing breakthrough concepts to LTE’s evolution. We believe that the next significant performance leap will come from heterogeneous networks, or HetNets, which bring the network closer to the user through low-power nodes such as pico and femto-cells. LTE Advanced uses adaptive interference management techniques to further improve the capacity and coverage of these HetNets. There by, ensuring fairness among users and an enhanced mobile experience, especially for those users at the cell edge. LTE Advanced also introduces multicarrier to leverage ultra wide bandwidths up to 100 MHz, supporting very high data rates.
Main Differences between LTE & LTE-AdvancedSabir Hussain
LTE stands for Long Term Evolution.
In Nov. 2004, 3GPP began a project to define the long-term evolution (LTE) of Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) cellular technology.
LTE systems have:
Higher performance
Backwards compatible
Wide application
Data Rate:
Instantaneous downlink peak data rate of 100Mbit/s in a 20MHz downlink spectrum (i.e. 5 bit/s/Hz)
Instantaneous uplink peak data rate of 50Mbit/s in a 20MHz uplink spectrum (i.e. 2.5 bit/s/Hz)
Cell range:
5 km - optimal size
30km sizes with reasonable performance
up to 100 km cell sizes supported with acceptable performance
Cell capacity:
up to 200 active users per cell(5 MHz) (i.e., 200 active data clients)
Mobility
Optimized for low mobility(0-15km/h) but supports high speed
Latency (delay)
user plane < 5ms
control plane < 50 ms
Improved broadcasting
IP-optimized
Scalable bandwidth of 20MHz, 15MHz, 10MHz, 5MHz and <5MHz
Co-existence with legacy standards (users can transparently start a call or transfer of data in an area using an LTE standard, and, when there is no coverage, continue the operation without any action on their part using GSM/GPRS or W-CDMA-based UMTS)
LTE Advanced is a mobile communication 4G standard approved by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Jan 2012.
LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) is an emerging and, as the name suggests, a more advanced set of standards and technologies that will be able to deliver bigger and speedier wireless-data payloads.
The most important thing to know is that LTE-A promises to deliver true 4G speeds, unlike current LTE networks. You can expect the real-world speed of LTE-A to be two to three times faster than today’s LTE.
To be considered true 4G (also known as “IMT-Advanced”), a mobile network must fulfill a number of benchmarks, including offering a peak data rate of at least 100 megabits per second (Mb/s) when a user moves through the network at high speeds, such as in a car or train, and 1 gigabit per second (Gb/s) when the user is in a fixed position.
The highest possible rates are never achieved in real world conditions. Actual rates will be variable, but we can expect LTE-A to be at least five times as fast as most LTE networks today, and that’s great news for video streaming.
LTE Advanced is supposed to provide higher capacity, an enhanced user experience, and greater fairness in terms of resource allocation.
It does this by combining a bunch of technologies, many of which have been around for some years, so we’re not really talking about the implementation of an entirely new system here.
Qualcomm: Making the best use of unlicensed spectrumQualcomm Research
In solving the 1000x challenge, licensed spectrum is the foundation. Equally important is utilizing available unlicensed spectrum. The best way to achieve this is to combine both of them through aggregation. Aggregation brings seamless user experience, better coverage and capacity, as well as the efficiencies of a common unified network. Operators have a choice on how to aggregate, and the decision depends on their current assets and future network plans.
Explore our this presentation and other resources to find out when, and how to choose? How can LTE-U coexist fairly with Wi-Fi in 5GHz unlicensed spectrum? What roles existing/new Wi-Fi, and LTE-U play? And whether it really is a "either or" decision.
Webpage: https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/1000x/spectrum/unlicensed
Download presentation: https://www.qualcomm.com/documents/making-best-use-unlicensed-spectrum-presentation
Sign up for our Technology Newsletter: https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/technologies/wireless/signup
Qualcomm is elevating its role as a market leader by bringing breakthrough concepts to LTE’s evolution. We believe that the next significant performance leap will come from heterogeneous networks, or HetNets, which bring the network closer to the user through low-power nodes such as pico and femto-cells. LTE Advanced uses adaptive interference management techniques to further improve the capacity and coverage of these HetNets. There by, ensuring fairness among users and an enhanced mobile experience, especially for those users at the cell edge. LTE Advanced also introduces multicarrier to leverage ultra wide bandwidths up to 100 MHz, supporting very high data rates.
Main Differences between LTE & LTE-AdvancedSabir Hussain
LTE stands for Long Term Evolution.
In Nov. 2004, 3GPP began a project to define the long-term evolution (LTE) of Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) cellular technology.
LTE systems have:
Higher performance
Backwards compatible
Wide application
Data Rate:
Instantaneous downlink peak data rate of 100Mbit/s in a 20MHz downlink spectrum (i.e. 5 bit/s/Hz)
Instantaneous uplink peak data rate of 50Mbit/s in a 20MHz uplink spectrum (i.e. 2.5 bit/s/Hz)
Cell range:
5 km - optimal size
30km sizes with reasonable performance
up to 100 km cell sizes supported with acceptable performance
Cell capacity:
up to 200 active users per cell(5 MHz) (i.e., 200 active data clients)
Mobility
Optimized for low mobility(0-15km/h) but supports high speed
Latency (delay)
user plane < 5ms
control plane < 50 ms
Improved broadcasting
IP-optimized
Scalable bandwidth of 20MHz, 15MHz, 10MHz, 5MHz and <5MHz
Co-existence with legacy standards (users can transparently start a call or transfer of data in an area using an LTE standard, and, when there is no coverage, continue the operation without any action on their part using GSM/GPRS or W-CDMA-based UMTS)
LTE Advanced is a mobile communication 4G standard approved by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Jan 2012.
LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) is an emerging and, as the name suggests, a more advanced set of standards and technologies that will be able to deliver bigger and speedier wireless-data payloads.
The most important thing to know is that LTE-A promises to deliver true 4G speeds, unlike current LTE networks. You can expect the real-world speed of LTE-A to be two to three times faster than today’s LTE.
To be considered true 4G (also known as “IMT-Advanced”), a mobile network must fulfill a number of benchmarks, including offering a peak data rate of at least 100 megabits per second (Mb/s) when a user moves through the network at high speeds, such as in a car or train, and 1 gigabit per second (Gb/s) when the user is in a fixed position.
The highest possible rates are never achieved in real world conditions. Actual rates will be variable, but we can expect LTE-A to be at least five times as fast as most LTE networks today, and that’s great news for video streaming.
LTE Advanced is supposed to provide higher capacity, an enhanced user experience, and greater fairness in terms of resource allocation.
It does this by combining a bunch of technologies, many of which have been around for some years, so we’re not really talking about the implementation of an entirely new system here.
Following the phenomenal global success of LTE, the stage is set for the foray of LTE Advanced. Industry leaders have already gotten a head start with its first step: carrier aggregation. Join us to explore the success factors behind LTE proliferation and an impressive lineup of enhancements that LTE Advanced is bringing.
For more information please visit:
www.qualcomm.com/lte-advanced
MulteFire is a new LTE-based air-interface that is being developed to operate solely in unlicensed spectrum, enabling it to offer the best of both worlds: LTE-like performance with Wi-Fi-like deployment simplicity.
MulteFire will broaden the LTE ecosystem with new deployment scenarios, such as enhanced broadband services and neutral hosts benefiting operators to augment wireless services. MulteFire applies to any unlicensed or shared spectrum when over-the-air contention is needed (listen before talk), such as the global 5 GHz band or the new 3.5 GHz band in the USA. The combination of neutral spectrum with high performing LTE and self-organizing networks will enable neutral host small-cells in more locations.
Industry-supported field trials are already demonstrating the viability of many of the
technical concepts in LTE-Advanced. The approach is to increase data rates for all
users, bring more out of small cells, dynamically adapt to network load and use of
more carriers for more speeds. Also there will be unprecedented ecosystem of handset-manufacturer, software-developers and chip-designers that will support this intelligent
network.
In this presentation we will briefly discuss principle technologies that are being adopted
in LTE-Advanced. We will understand the basics of the technologies that are under
developmental stages and look if we can contribute to their future enhancements.
Shared/unlicensed spectrum is important for 5G and is valuable for wide range of deployments from extreme bandwidth by aggregating spectrum, enhanced local broadband to Internet of Things verticals. 5G New Radio (NR) will natively support all different spectrum types and is designed to take advantage of new sharing paradigms. We are pioneering 5G shared spectrum today by building on LTE-U/LAA, LWA, CBRS/LSA and MulteFire.
Following the phenomenal global success of LTE, the stage is set for the foray of LTE Advanced. Industry leaders have already gotten a head start with its first step: carrier aggregation. Join us to explore the success factors behind LTE proliferation and an impressive lineup of enhancements that LTE Advanced is bringing.
For more information please visit:
www.qualcomm.com/lte-advanced
MulteFire is a new LTE-based air-interface that is being developed to operate solely in unlicensed spectrum, enabling it to offer the best of both worlds: LTE-like performance with Wi-Fi-like deployment simplicity.
MulteFire will broaden the LTE ecosystem with new deployment scenarios, such as enhanced broadband services and neutral hosts benefiting operators to augment wireless services. MulteFire applies to any unlicensed or shared spectrum when over-the-air contention is needed (listen before talk), such as the global 5 GHz band or the new 3.5 GHz band in the USA. The combination of neutral spectrum with high performing LTE and self-organizing networks will enable neutral host small-cells in more locations.
Industry-supported field trials are already demonstrating the viability of many of the
technical concepts in LTE-Advanced. The approach is to increase data rates for all
users, bring more out of small cells, dynamically adapt to network load and use of
more carriers for more speeds. Also there will be unprecedented ecosystem of handset-manufacturer, software-developers and chip-designers that will support this intelligent
network.
In this presentation we will briefly discuss principle technologies that are being adopted
in LTE-Advanced. We will understand the basics of the technologies that are under
developmental stages and look if we can contribute to their future enhancements.
Shared/unlicensed spectrum is important for 5G and is valuable for wide range of deployments from extreme bandwidth by aggregating spectrum, enhanced local broadband to Internet of Things verticals. 5G New Radio (NR) will natively support all different spectrum types and is designed to take advantage of new sharing paradigms. We are pioneering 5G shared spectrum today by building on LTE-U/LAA, LWA, CBRS/LSA and MulteFire.
Wireless communication is a communication method that utilizes the characteristics of electromagnetic wave signals propagating in free space to exchange information. Wireless communication technology has many advantages and low cost. Wireless communication technology does not need to establish physical lines, and it does not need a lot of manpower to lay cables. Moreover, wireless communication technology is not limited by the industrial environment, and it has strong ability to resist environmental changes. Also relatively easy, compared to the traditional wired communication setup and maintenance, wireless network maintenance can be completed through remote diagnosis, more convenient; scalability is strong, when the network needs to be expanded, wireless communication does not need to expand the wiring; flexibility, wireless The network is not limited by the terrain of the environment, and when the use environment changes, the wireless network can be adapted to the requirements of the new environment with little adjustment.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the four major wireless technologies Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz?
Now there are about 50 billion devices using the four major wireless technologies Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz wireless communication methods.
According to data from the GSM Consortium, mobile handhelds and personal computers account for only 1/4 of these devices, and the rest are autonomous interconnected devices that use non-user interaction to communicate with other machines.
At present, our Internet is rapidly developing into a World Wide Web - Internet of Things (IoT) with the interconnection of four major wireless technologies: Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz wireless devices.
Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz wireless network technology core features and capabilities
Wi-Fi is a communication technology based on a 2.4GHz band, which is good at transmitting large amounts of data quickly between two nodes, but at the same time consumes high energy and limits each AP to no more than 15-32 clients in a star configuration.
Bluetooth is another 2.4GHz technology, which is targeted at portable devices and is mainly used as a point-to-point solution, supporting only a few nodes.
ZigBee shares the same wireless spectrum as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, but is only used to meet the specific needs of low-power wireless sensor nodes.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the four major wireless technologies Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz?
Now there are about 50 billion devices using the four major wireless technologies Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz wireless communication methods.
According to data from the GSM Consortium, mobile handhelds and personal computers account for only 1/4 of these devices, and the rest are autonomous interconnected devices that use non-user interaction to communicate with other machines.
At present, our Internet is rapidly developing into a World Wide Web - Internet of Things (IoT) with the interconnection of four major wireless technologies: Wi-Fi Bluetooth ZigBee and Sub-GHz wireless devices.
Mobile data traffic is exploding and the industry is now preparing for an astounding 1000x increase. Qualcomm is leading the charge through its compelling technologies and path breaking innovations in preparing the industry to meet this "1000x challenge."
This whitepaper sets the vision for the efforts needed by the industry to achieve this monumental goal; All the while providing solid proof points for the initial concepts and technologies that are building blocks of the overall vision.
Wireless – It’s complicated! By Albert KangasAnn Treacy
Wireless is complicated involving various technologies, geographic and topographic implications, legal considerations, pricing models, all wrapped in marketing jargon that is sure to confuse.
Join us for an informative webinar, aimed to give participants a more solid understanding about which wireless technologies will provide the broadband Internet your community wants and needs.
Learn:
The various parts of the radio spectrum are allocated and used.
How your community’s topography and tree cover impacts wireless performance.
About licensed and unlicensed frequencies and why that matters.
About how fiber makes wireless better
Aricent's Converged Internet of Things (IoT) solution provides centralization of events from multiple IoT sensors and devices and provides a platform for aggregating these events for upstream applications and systems. The Aricent Converged IoT solution, along with Aricent ADAPT hardware, enables events from various sensors and gateways that use different formats and protocols for communications to be handled in a unified manner. Event information is consolidated for integration with upstream applications and business processes.
Aricent’s Highly Automated Vulnerability Assessment
Orchestration Containers (HAVOC) framework automates
security testing—enabling clients to harden products/ecosystems, and reduce risk of zero-day vulnerabilities. HAVOC provides extensive tool coverage, accelerates security analysts’ processes, and is highly scalable. Organizations leveraging HAVOC no longer require large, highly skilled, and expensive-to-maintain workforces to design for security, and ensure a high degree of consumer trust.
LTE & Wi-Fi: Options for Uniting Them for a Better User ExperienceAricent
Most national governments consider the radio spectrum a valuable national resource and heavily regulate its commercial use. Governments typically auction off licenses for the right to transmit over a portion of the spectrum, which can be very expensive. The traditional business model for cellular
carriers is based on access to this licensed business has coalesced worldwide around a single 4th generation (4G) radio technology standard called Long Term Evolution, commonly referred to as LTE.
Aricent offers comprehensive WLAN/Wi-Fi testing services to ensure that the devices work seamlessly in any kind of deployment. Our WLAN testing offering portfolio - including system validation and test automation framework, along with a state-of-the-art Wi-Fi test lab - helps our clients improve quality, reduce cost and accelerate time-to-market
It’s not enough to embrace the new digital era. The
existential challenge for companies today is to become
digitally durable - to anticipate disruption and
transform processes and products to compete on
outcomes. Whether it’s understanding the profound
impact of self-driving cars on transportation or being
a part of the smart-energy revolution, simply closing
the digital gap is no longer sufficient.
Aricent’s research, detailed in Technology Vision
2016, shows that successful companies are pursuing
an R&D paradigm that allows them to compete
aggressively on outcomes.5 These companies have a
culture that anticipates disruption to create sustainable
value from Internet of Things. They are digitally
durable.
Mpls conference 2016-data center virtualisation-11-marchAricent
Aricent’s presentation on “Micro VNFs and Micro service environment” on next generation Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs) is heating up. In debate on micro services, carriers has requested communities to step up research on micro service deployments.
Aricent believes that existing VNFs, which comes directly from the physical appliances software are not rightly designed and are less suited for cloud operations. These first generation VNFs are replication of physical appliances, monolithic architecture and need more computational power. These are heavy with physical appliance platform features i.e. HA, ISSU, Nonstop Routing/Switching and they have lots of redundant code which may not be necessary on cloud. As cloud platform provides these feature through its inherent platform capabilities.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
State of ICS and IoT Cyber Threat Landscape Report 2024 previewPrayukth K V
The IoT and OT threat landscape report has been prepared by the Threat Research Team at Sectrio using data from Sectrio, cyber threat intelligence farming facilities spread across over 85 cities around the world. In addition, Sectrio also runs AI-based advanced threat and payload engagement facilities that serve as sinks to attract and engage sophisticated threat actors, and newer malware including new variants and latent threats that are at an earlier stage of development.
The latest edition of the OT/ICS and IoT security Threat Landscape Report 2024 also covers:
State of global ICS asset and network exposure
Sectoral targets and attacks as well as the cost of ransom
Global APT activity, AI usage, actor and tactic profiles, and implications
Rise in volumes of AI-powered cyberattacks
Major cyber events in 2024
Malware and malicious payload trends
Cyberattack types and targets
Vulnerability exploit attempts on CVEs
Attacks on counties – USA
Expansion of bot farms – how, where, and why
In-depth analysis of the cyber threat landscape across North America, South America, Europe, APAC, and the Middle East
Why are attacks on smart factories rising?
Cyber risk predictions
Axis of attacks – Europe
Systemic attacks in the Middle East
Download the full report from here:
https://sectrio.com/resources/ot-threat-landscape-reports/sectrio-releases-ot-ics-and-iot-security-threat-landscape-report-2024/
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualityInflectra
In this insightful webinar, Inflectra explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming software development and testing. Discover how AI-powered tools are revolutionizing every stage of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), from design and prototyping to testing, deployment, and monitoring.
Learn about:
• The Future of Testing: How AI is shifting testing towards verification, analysis, and higher-level skills, while reducing repetitive tasks.
• Test Automation: How AI-powered test case generation, optimization, and self-healing tests are making testing more efficient and effective.
• Visual Testing: Explore the emerging capabilities of AI in visual testing and how it's set to revolutionize UI verification.
• Inflectra's AI Solutions: See demonstrations of Inflectra's cutting-edge AI tools like the ChatGPT plugin and Azure Open AI platform, designed to streamline your testing process.
Whether you're a developer, tester, or QA professional, this webinar will give you valuable insights into how AI is shaping the future of software delivery.
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Tobias Schneck
As AI technology is pushing into IT I was wondering myself, as an “infrastructure container kubernetes guy”, how get this fancy AI technology get managed from an infrastructure operational view? Is it possible to apply our lovely cloud native principals as well? What benefit’s both technologies could bring to each other?
Let me take this questions and provide you a short journey through existing deployment models and use cases for AI software. On practical examples, we discuss what cloud/on-premise strategy we may need for applying it to our own infrastructure to get it to work from an enterprise perspective. I want to give an overview about infrastructure requirements and technologies, what could be beneficial or limiting your AI use cases in an enterprise environment. An interactive Demo will give you some insides, what approaches I got already working for real.
Connector Corner: Automate dynamic content and events by pushing a buttonDianaGray10
Here is something new! In our next Connector Corner webinar, we will demonstrate how you can use a single workflow to:
Create a campaign using Mailchimp with merge tags/fields
Send an interactive Slack channel message (using buttons)
Have the message received by managers and peers along with a test email for review
But there’s more:
In a second workflow supporting the same use case, you’ll see:
Your campaign sent to target colleagues for approval
If the “Approve” button is clicked, a Jira/Zendesk ticket is created for the marketing design team
But—if the “Reject” button is pushed, colleagues will be alerted via Slack message
Join us to learn more about this new, human-in-the-loop capability, brought to you by Integration Service connectors.
And...
Speakers:
Akshay Agnihotri, Product Manager
Charlie Greenberg, Host
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 3DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 3. In this session, we will cover desktop automation along with UI automation.
Topics covered:
UI automation Introduction,
UI automation Sample
Desktop automation flow
Pradeep Chinnala, Senior Consultant Automation Developer @WonderBotz and UiPath MVP
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Let's dive deeper into the world of ODC! Ricardo Alves (OutSystems) will join us to tell all about the new Data Fabric. After that, Sezen de Bruijn (OutSystems) will get into the details on how to best design a sturdy architecture within ODC.
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...DanBrown980551
Do you want to learn how to model and simulate an electrical network from scratch in under an hour?
Then welcome to this PowSyBl workshop, hosted by Rte, the French Transmission System Operator (TSO)!
During the webinar, you will discover the PowSyBl ecosystem as well as handle and study an electrical network through an interactive Python notebook.
PowSyBl is an open source project hosted by LF Energy, which offers a comprehensive set of features for electrical grid modelling and simulation. Among other advanced features, PowSyBl provides:
- A fully editable and extendable library for grid component modelling;
- Visualization tools to display your network;
- Grid simulation tools, such as power flows, security analyses (with or without remedial actions) and sensitivity analyses;
The framework is mostly written in Java, with a Python binding so that Python developers can access PowSyBl functionalities as well.
What you will learn during the webinar:
- For beginners: discover PowSyBl's functionalities through a quick general presentation and the notebook, without needing any expert coding skills;
- For advanced developers: master the skills to efficiently apply PowSyBl functionalities to your real-world scenarios.
"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor TurskyiFwdays
I have heard many times that architecture is not important for the front-end. Also, many times I have seen how developers implement features on the front-end just following the standard rules for a framework and think that this is enough to successfully launch the project, and then the project fails. How to prevent this and what approach to choose? I have launched dozens of complex projects and during the talk we will analyze which approaches have worked for me and which have not.
FIDO Alliance Osaka Seminar: The WebAuthn API and Discoverable Credentials.pdf
LTE & Wi-Fi: Options for Uniting Them for a Better User Experience
1. LTE & Wi-Fi: Options for
Uniting Them for a Better
User Experience
2. 2
Most national governments consider the radio
spectrum a valuable national resource and
heavily regulate its commercial use.
Governments typically auction off licenses for
the right to transmit over a portion of the
spectrum, which can be very expensive.
The traditional business model for cellular
carriers is based on access to this licensed
spectrum. They license slices of spectrum from
the local regulator and sell their customers
access to it. After decades of parallel evolution
on the two sides of the Atlantic through
multiple generations of technologies, the
business has coalesced worldwide around a
single 4th generation (4G) radio technology
standard called Long Term Evolution,
commonly referred to as LTE.
However, if a wireless device promises to “play
nice,” most regulators will allow it to transmit
on a slice of spectrum set aside for that
purpose: the license-exempt, license-free or
simply unlicensed bands. Playing nice means
adhering to certain rules that will be verified
when the device is certified. The rules are
derived from basic human civility:
I will not shout too loudly—there is a
limitation on transmit power, with the
Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP)
limited to anything between 4W (36 dBm)
to 25 mW (14 dBm).
I will share the resource, not monopolize
it—these are rules about the duty cycle, the
maximum duration of transmit bursts,
minimum duration of silence after
transmission, and an obligation to “listen
before talk (LBT).”
I will yield to users who have been deemed
by society to be serving a higher need than
I have—as we would pull over to give way
to a fire engine or ambulance, unlicensed
spectrum users must move away from a
frequency if they detect equipment like
airport weather radar operating on it.
While the exact situation varies by country,
generally speaking there are three unlicensed
bands of greatest interest today when it comes to wireless
broadband:
The 2.4 GHz band (λ ≈ 12 cm) has 83 MHz between
2.400 and 2.483 GHz. This band is almost
uniformly available worldwide and is heavily used
by consumer devices.
The 5 GHz band (λ ≈ 5½ cm) has 775 MHz between
5.150 and 5.925 GHz. This band is gaining
popularity in consumer devices—mostly in
premium and high-end devices for now—but its
allocation is fragmented and less uniform across
countries.
The 60 GHz band (λ ≈ ½ cm) has 9,000 MHz
between 57 and 66 GHz. This band is relatively new
and promising, though the laws of physics put some
limitations on the ways it can be used.
The dominant wireless broadband technology in these
three bands is Wi-Fi, which is based on the IEEE 802.11
wireless LAN standard. Wireless LAN technology is now
heavily used for private networks in homes as well as in
the workplace. Then there is public Wi-Fi, which is
common in cafés, restaurants, airports, hotels, shopping
malls, and increasingly on trains and planes. Sometimes
it is complimentary, and sometimes we have to pay for it.
In fact, in several small, densely populated developed
nations such as Singapore, Wi-Fi can be found almost
anywhere.
While cellular carriers have been good at providing
coverage—especially outdoors—they face both coverage
and capacity challenges as the demand for broadband
internet access grows.
There can be a coverage problem at the network’s
edge, in locations where installing radio
infrastructure, such as towers, cannot be justified
financially.
There is a coverage problem indoors, because the
materials a building is made of—especially stone,
concrete, steel and metallized sun-control
film—can block radio signals to and from the
carrier’s cell tower outdoors.
There can be a capacity problem in “hotspots”
where many people congregate. This isn’t a
problem if the carrier has enough licensed
spectrum to address this demand. However,
spectrum licenses are expensive, and budgeting
spectrum for the capacity demands of hotspots
would leave most of that spectrum unused
3. 3
In recent years, cellular carriers have been looking
at the unlicensed spectrum for ways to address all
of these challenges.
01 —
02 —
03 —
over most of the carrier’s coverage footprint.
The other way to handle the demand is to
put radio infrastructure equipment closer
together—for example cell towers—thereby
having smaller cells where the demand is
higher. The downside of this approach is it
increases interference and causes more
handovers—which do not help beyond a
point. Such hotspots may be:
Outdoors, such as stadiums and
entertainment venues, as well as
locations like Times Square, Piccadilly
Circus and Shibuya Crossing.
Indoors, such as shopping malls, airports
and railway stations—public indoor
spaces inside buildings that get
significant numbers of walk-in users.
Clearly, as explained above, a coverage
problem is also present in such locations,
so the carrier gets hit with a double
whammy which is difficult to address for
two reasons:
First, the cellular carrier, the walk-in
user and the building owner are distinct
and separate entities. Since the building
blocks radio signals to and from its
network outside, the obvious answer is to
install radio infrastructure—a distributed
antenna system (DAS) fed by one of the
carrier’s base stations—within the
building. Unfortunately, while the carrier
“owns” the user and the spectrum
license, it has no rights to the space
inside the building.
Second, the owner of the building has no
spectrum license, but he controls the
space inside the building. He would
presumably like to monetize it by cutting
some kind of deal with the carrier, but
since there are typically multiple carriers
in the area—anywhere from two to six on
an average—it may be against the
building owner’s interest to play favorites
between them by allowing only one of
them to install a DAS.
Unlicensed spectrum infrastructure can
substitute licensed spectrum coverage in
network-edge locations. Due to the
regulatory limitations on transmit power,
however, all such coverage using
unlicensed spectrum can only be of the
hotspot or “hot-zone” variety: that is,
only terminals that are in the vicinity of
the infrastructure can be served.
For indoor terminals in poor
signal-to-noise (SNR) locations, it is
possible to use indoor unlicensed
spectrum infrastructure to compensate
for higher path loss between outdoor cell
towers and indoor locations. This offers
an option to keep only low-bitrate
signaling on licensed spectrum while
using unlicensed spectrum to deliver
most of the payload traffic.
In situations of capacity crunch, it is
possible to augment the available air-link
capacity by diverting overflow traffic
from licensed spectrum to be delivered
over unlicensed spectrum. This allows for
the combination of:
serving more terminals in locations
that have many users in one place; and
providing a thicker data pipe to
terminals, which potentially provides
substantially higher bit rates for all
applications that use “best effort”
Quality of Service.
In the specific instance of public indoor spaces,
solutions based on unlicensed spectrum are also
attractive for building owners, as they can install
unlicensed-band radio infrastructure in their
buildings. They can then “rent out” the use of this
infrastructure equitably to all carriers in the area,
and the carriers can use it to serve their respective
subscribers who walk into those buildings. The
end user gets high-quality connectivity, the carrier
gets the goodwill from satisfied customers, and
the building owner makes some money. It’s a
win-win situation all around.
4. Building owners may actually be ahead of the
game. Indeed, an increasing percent of them are
investing in public Wi-Fi, which is the dominant
form of radio access in the unlicensed spectrum.
Quite a lot of the public Wi-Fi is running without
the involvement of any carrier, however, and in
the rest of the public Wi-Fi deployment the
involvement of the carrier is very loose. As a
consequence, the end-user experience is not
“seamless.”
In fact, it can be argued that there is a threat to
the carriers in this case. When the end user
connects through the unlicensed spectrum
infrastructure belonging to the building owner,
the carrier adds value by being a broker between
the two—it’s a trusted intermediary known to
both parties. However, this role can be fulfilled
equally well by a Wi-Fi aggregator, such Boingo
or iPass, that exist for that very purpose.
10
So how should a carrier play this game? To
understand the challenge, we have to familiarize
ourselves with the structure of a cellular broadband
network. Figure 1 shows what a LTE network looks
like when only the internet-access service is
considered.
The User Equipment (UE) is the end-user’s
smartphone, which may be a carrier-locked model
purchased from the carrier or an “unlocked” model
bought in the open market. The Subscriber Identity
Module (SIM) is the tiny smart card that goes into
the phone: it is in fact a computer in its own right,
and holds the subscription credentials that
authenticate the phone to the network when
required.
The Evolved Node B (ENB) is the LTE radio base
station. The Mobility Management Entity (MME)
and the Serving Gateway (SGW) are functions of the
LTE core network that, in case of roaming, must be
in the “visited network” to which the end-user is
connected.
Figure 1: The LTE internet service flow
The red line is the path taken by the data packets, the green lines are for authentication, the blue lines are for signal control,
and the yellow line is for credit control and authorization.
ENBUE
MME
HSS
OCS
AAA
PGWSGW Internet
Licensed
SIM
5. The PDN Gateway (PGW) is the point where
the LTE network connects to the Internet. It is
the function that allocates dynamic IP
addresses to each UE as they connect, and it is
the last router that IP packets addressed to the
UE have to pass through. It is a function of the
packet core that may be located in the visited
network or the home network—the choice is up
to the carrier.
The Home Subscriber Server (HSS), Online
Charging System (OCS) and AAA Server are
systems that must be in the subscriber’s home
network whether or not they are roaming. The
HSS/AAA holds the subscription information
for the end user and their authentication
credentials, while the OCS maintains his credit
balance to enable prepaid pay-as-you-go
service.
Figure 2
The key to this solution is to leverage the user’s SIM
for authentication using a technique known as
EAP-SIM/EAP-AKA. Additionally, technologies such
as Hotspot 2.0 can be used by the Wi-Fi network to
advertise its willingness to accept visitors from the
user’s carrier, which can help automate the process.
After the user’s Wi-Fi session is over, the Wi-Fi
network will send the accounting records to the
carrier, billing settlement will take place offline, and
the user will be charged for the usage in their next
phone bill.
For now, this technique has one advantage over
methods discussed below: almost any smartphone on
sale today can access Wi-Fi using unlicensed spectrum.
However, there are some shortcomings: Service
continuity—commonly called handover—with the
cellular mobile broadband service offered by the
carrier is not possible. Simply put, when the user
comes into the Wi-Fi network from outside, any data
sessions, such as TCP/IP connections, will need to be
restarted. It will be up to the application whether that
is acceptable.
The red line indicates the path taken by
the data packets flowing between the UE
and the Internet.
The green lines indicate paths used
primarily for authentication.
The blue lines indicate paths used by
more general control signaling that is
used to set up, modify and tear down the
connectivity.
The yellow line indicate the path taken by
‘online charging’ credit control
interactions that make prepaid services
possible.
With Figure 1 as the reference point, consider
Figure 2 which shows the entry-level way
carriers can tap into the unlicensed spectrum.
Prepaid service is not possible. This may not be a
big problem in economies such as the US where
postpaid and contracts are standard practice.
However, in some of the largest cellular markets
in the world, including China and India, prepaid
service is the dominant model.
UE
HSS
OCS
AAA
InternetWi-Fi
Unlicensed
SIM
6. Figure 3
In fact, it is difficult to distinguish this model
from the business models pursued by Wi-Fi
aggregators. Something is required to make it
more attractive, which is captured in Figure 3.
In this new model, called the trusted WLAN, the
carrier extends its core network to the site where
the Wi-Fi is deployed, and provides a connection
between the Wi-Fi network and the PGW. In one
fell swoop, the carrier solves the problems of
connecting to the user:
To be sure, there are a few blemishes:
12
Since the user traffic is not carried by the
carrier at all—the red line does not touch any
of the carrier’s infrastructure—the carrier will
probably be able to claim only a small share
of revenue.
The user traffic is transported over the
carrier’s infrastructure (the PGW), so the
carrier can claim a larger share of the
revenue.
Since the PGW knows about credit control,
all of a sudden the carrier can now handle
users who have prepaid plans.
The PGW is, in fact, the same as the one used
for cellular access, so it is possible to
maintain service continuity as the UE moves
between LTE and Wi-Fi radio accesses: the
PGW can ensure the IP address allocated to
the UE will be the same.
To take advantage of the network’s
new-found ability to maintain service
continuity, the UE has to learn about some
new signaling procedures. Specifically, it has
to replace the ubiquitous Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) protocol with
something else. Luckily, this is a software
change, and the UE can execute the new
tricks with a software update.
Whenever the UE moves between Wi-Fi and
LTE radios, there is signaling traffic to and
from the PGW. This is undesirable: not only
does it create potentially avoidable load on
the PGW when the user is roaming, but it can
slow down the handovers.
The decision to move to Wi-Fi and back to
LTE is left to the end-user (or at least the
policy they configured in the phone,) so
sometimes the UE will be on Wi-Fi when the
carrier would rather have it on LTE, or vice
versa.
Also when the UE chooses Wi-Fi, the entire
traffic to and from the UE is subject to the
interference-prone uncertainties of the
unlicensed spectrum. It may be preferable to
set aside a portion of the traffic to be
transported over the licensed spectrum which
the carrier has more control over.
This model is as good as it gets in locations where
the carrier is depending on unlicensed spectrum
to substitute licensed spectrum coverage.
However, if the UE is located where both LTE and
Wi-Fi are available, it may be less than
satisfactory from the carrier’s point of view.
UE
HSS
OCS
AAA
PGW InternetWi-Fi
Unlicensed
SIM
7. There is a fork on the road ahead when
addressing these two challenges. The left fork
addresses challenge 1, as captured in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Figure 5
In this approach—called Network Based IP Flow
Mobility (NBIFOM)—the UE maintains simultaneous
LTE and Wi-Fi connections, and offloads only a part of
its traffic to Wi-Fi. The data traffic is partitioned based
on each packet’s:
Remote IP Address (i.e. of the server in the
Internet)
Protocol (i.e. TCP, UDP, SCTP, ICMP, ESP,
GRE, …)
Local Port Number (i.e. at the UE end)
Remote Port Number (i.e. at the server in the
Internet)
Security Parameter Index (for ESP packets)
Flow Label (for IPv6 packets)
“Type of Service” or DSCP “Traffic Class” field
In this solution, called RAN Controlled LTE
WLAN Interworking (RCLWI), the decision to
pick LTE or W-Fi is handled by the ENB. The
UE maintains an LTE connection whenever it
can see the LTE network—irrespective of
whether it is using offload-to-Wi-Fi or not. The
UE keeps the ENB informed of the
measurements of the Wi-Fi networks around
itself. Based on this information, the ENB
commands the UE to start or stop offloading to
Wi-Fi, and specifically to which Wi-Fi network.
This approach can pinpoint all communications from
the terminal to a particular server on the internet. In
the world of 3GPP/LTE protocols, the data traffic to
and from the internet can be split into a maximum of
11 distinct partitions, called bearers.
Unfortunately, RCLWI doesn’t address challenge 2
and NBIFOM does not address challenge 1.
Fortunately, there is a third approach captured in
Figure 6, named LTE WLAN Aggregation (LWA), that
addresses both challenges.
HSS
OSS
AAA
PGW Internet
Wi-Fi
Unlicensed
UE
Licensed
ENB
Measurements →
← Orders
SIM
ENB
UE
MME HSS
OCS
AAA
PGWSGW Internet
Wi-Fi
Unlicensed
Licensed
SIM
8. Figure 6
Figure 7
This solution incorporates both UE-reported
Wi-Fi measurements from RCLWI and the use of
different radios for different bearers—or IP flows,
sometimes called packet pipes—from NBIFOM.
Unlike NBIFOM, the Wi-Fi leg no longer requires
a separate AAA operation—instead, the Wi-Fi
infrastructure can “borrow” the authentication
from the LTE side.
Recognizing that the choice between the LTE
radio and Wi-Fi radio is ultimately significant
only between the UE and the base station, this
solution splits or merges the traffic at the base
station (ENB) and leaves the packet core (PGW)
entirely out of the picture. LWA is completely
transparent to the core network, which remains
entirely unaware of whether each data packet is
carried over Wi-Fi or LTE. Not only does this
reduce the signaling overhead between the access
and core networks, it simplifies charging
enormously: no per-user charging is required for
traffic that is offloaded to Wi-Fi.
12
Switched Bearer mode, where the entire
bearer is diverted over LWA. It may be
diverted back to LTE but only by signaling
between the UE and ENB.
Split Bearer mode, where the decision of
whether the packet goes over Wi-Fi or LTE is
taken on a packet-by-packet basis. No
signaling exchange is necessary.
Typically, only non-GBR (guaranteed
bitrate), best-effort bearers will be diverted.
Diversion of GBR bearers is permitted, but it is
understood that the bit rate is not guaranteed in
Wi-Fi.
But how is the data packet actually transported?
Figure 7 explains the protocol stack applicable for
LWA user traffic, which is the Payload IP layer.
The stack to the left is used to transport data in
regular Wi-Fi, while the one to the right is used in
regular LTE. The stack in the middle is used when
LTE data is diverted over Wi-Fi in LWA, and it
inherits qualities from both sides.
The control plane continues to use LTE on the
licensed spectrum, which is a path the carrier has
more control over. For the bearers carrying user
traffic, there are two possible modes of operation:
ENB
UE
MME
HSS
OCS
AAA
PGWSGW Internet
Wi-Fi
Unlicensed
Licensed
SIM
Wi-Fi MAC
Wi-Fi PHY
2.4, 5 or 60 GHz
Payload IP
LTE MAC
LTE PHY
Licensed Band
LTE PDCP
LTE RLC
Payload IP
Wi-Fi MAC
Wi-Fi PHY
2.4, 5 or 60 GHz
LWAAP
Payload IP
LTE PDCP
Wi-Fi U-Plane Stack LWA U-Plane Stack LTE U-Plane Stack
9. Figure 8
3
Consider what this means in the context of the
building depicted in Figure 8. The Wi-Fi
Installation belongs to the building owner. The
two carriers in the area are represented by the
colors red and blue. The red and blue lines in the
picture denote the Xw interfaces for the respective
carriers.
In the Wi-Fi Medium Access Control (MAC),
the packet header—technically the SNAP
header—contains a 2-byte field called
EtherType. When IP packets are transported
over Wi-Fi, this field is hexadecimal ‘0800’ for
IPv4 packets and hexadecimal ‘86DD’ for IPv6
packets. For LWA, this field is set to
hexadecimal ‘9E65’, which tells the Wi-Fi
infrastructure that what follows in the packet is
not a naked IP packet but is encapsulated using
LTE PDCP. LWA introduces a 1-byte ‘LWAAP
header’ that identifies the bearer to which the
packet belongs.
In Release 13 LWA, only downlink traffic can
be diverted. Diversion of uplink will be allowed
from the Release 14 version of the standards.
LWA is derived from a 3GPP architecture
called dual connectivity (DC) that will
eventually enable network infrastructure that
uses multiple, and possibly very different radio
technologies simultaneously to transfer data
fast and efficiently to and from the UE. This
architecture is very flexible. It works with
simple IP connectivity between the
infrastructure-side radios without the need for
strict synchronization between them. This
feature—along with the standardization of the
interface (named Xw) between the ENB and
Wi-Fi infrastructure—allows LWA to address a
variety of configurations.
The Wi-Fi installation in the building can
serve multiple carriers—potentially all
the carriers in the area.
Each outdoor ENB can serve multiple
LWA-capable Wi-Fi installations. This
makes it possible for the Wi-Fi
installation in any number of buildings in
the outdoor base station’s coverage
footprint to support the ENB’s LTE
coverage. It does this by augmenting its
capacity and by compensating for any
coverage degradation that may have
occurred due to radio-penetration losses.
This is a win-win-win situation for everyone:
building owners, carriers and end users.
The possibilities extend beyond LWA, to License
Assisted Access (LAA), which is shown in Figure 9.
Here, we dispense with Wi-Fi altogether, and carry
traffic on the unlicensed spectrum using a form of
the LTE air interface.
Small Cell
ENB
Lightweight
AP
DAS
Remote
Outdoor
(Tower)
ENB
Outside Basement Ceiling
DAS
Headend
Carrier A @(
UE
Floor
Packet
Core
Packet
Core
To another building
ABuilding
Carrier B
Wi-Fi Installation
DAS Installation
LTE
LTE
Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi
Wireless LAN
Controller
10. Figure 9
Every LTE smartphone already has a
Wi-Fi radio, making LWA possible
right now with just a software update.
LAA would require new smartphones
with LTE-over-unlicensed-band radios.
Carrier aggregation integrates the
packet schedulers of the component
radios, which requires the radios to be
tightly synchronized. In practice, the
radios must be integrated into the
same base-station hardware in the
same location. Separating the licensed
and unlicensed radios would require a
very demanding “ideal backhaul”
between them and limit the
deployment flexibility of LAA
considerably.
Regulatory requirements such as “listen
before talk (LBT)” can reduce
throughput of the LTE air interface
(which was not designed for such
restrictions) to below what is offered by
Wi-Fi (which was designed for such
restrictions).
This idea is derived from the Carrier
Aggregation (CA) architecture developed for
LTE Advanced. The 3GPP has already
welcomed the 5 GHz unlicensed band into
the LTE fold, designating it TDD Band 46
(5150-5925 MHz). While LAA can bring
additional efficiencies over LWA, in practice
LWA appears to be the optimal solution for
the following reasons: Still, every one of the options above is
available to the carriers and equipment
manufacturers today. There are even side
roads, including options based on running
IPSEC (IKEv2/ESP) over Wi-Fi on the UE
that allow carriers to partner with Wi-Fi
networks that wish to join the game but are
unwilling to upgrade their Wi-Fi
infrastructure to support new 3GPP-specific
interface protocols.
All the options that involve Wi-Fi in the
unlicensed spectrum may eventually be
supported by handsets through software
updates, making them available to carriers
on equal terms. In the meantime, however,
Aricent believes LWA is a technology that
has great potential and capabilities that
could make it the eventual winner.
16
ENBUE
MME
HSS
OCS
AAA
PGWSGW Internet
Unlicensed
Licensed
SIM