5G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication Implementation Challenges and Operational Issues With Iot Devices
5G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication Implementation Challenges and Operational Issues With Iot Devices
5G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication Implementation Challenges and Operational Issues With Iot Devices
3 School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea
Abstract: To meet the diverse industrial and market demands, the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) has classified the fifth-generation (5G) into ultra-reliable low latency communications
(URLLC), enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), and massive machine-type communications
(mMTC). Researchers conducted studies to achieve the implementation of the mentioned
distributions efficiently, within the available spectrum. This paper aims to highlight the importance
of URLLC in accordance with the approaching era of technology and industry requirements. While
highlighting a few implementation issues of URLLC, concerns for the Internet of things (IoT) devices
that depend on the low latency and reliable communications of URLLC are also addressed. In this
paper, the recent progress of 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standardization and the
implementation of URLLC are included. Finally, the research areas that are open for further
investigation in URLLC implementation are highlighted, and efficient implementation of URLLC is
discussed.
1. Introduction
With the everyday increase in data traffic requirements ranging from mission-critical to massive
machine connectivity, the anticipation of the fifth-generation (5G) is growing at an exponential rate.
Although such requirements open new doors to exciting features and business models, the provision
of these requirements for such intense traffic and diverse services (Figure 1) remains a challenge for
the telecom industry.
2G 3G 4G 5G
Figure 2. The flexible frame structure of 5G new radio (NR) [2]. URLLC, ultra-reliable low latency
communications; eMBB, enhanced mobile broadband; mMTC, massive machine-type
communications; IoT, Internet of Things; NB, Narrowband.
The new NR facilitates communications between the base station and the user/mobile device.
With such rapid changes in technology and user demands, NR is designed not only to facilitate the
three defined categories of ITU, but also to provide space for future growth in technology, as shown
in Figure 3. The three basic categories formulated by ITU for 5G [3] are as follows:
1 enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB),
2 ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC), and
3 massive machine-type communications (mMTC).
2. Importance of URLLC
Although all three categories defined by ITU have their significance as shown in Table 1. URLLC
has recently been very intriguing for researchers worldwide. A field experiment carried out by the
NTT DOCOMO Inc. and Huawei on URLLC showed quite positive results [5].
Electronics 2019, 8, 981 3 of 18
Table 1. Intended features for the categories defined by the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) [3,4]. URLLC, ultra-reliable low latency communications; eMBB, enhanced mobile broadband;
mMTC, massive machine-type communications.
Achieving URLLC requirements is quite a challenge for 5G networks and will require massive
modifications to the system design of the current telecom infrastructure. Owing to the encouraging
results achieved with URLLC, it can play an integral role in the 5G era. Although current user
requirements are initially based on high bandwidth, latency and reliability are also expected to play
a vital role in real-time applications and mission-critical networks. Table 2 clearly highlights the
importance of reliability and latency in future applications.
The channel quality and lack of dedicated bandwidth can be an obstacle to meeting the desired
latency requirement for URLLC [13]. To achieve the desired reliability in URLLC is also a challenge.
As several mobile applications rely on different methods of retransmission, the retransmission of data
in URLLC can degrade latency [11], unless the retransmission methods are designed as per URLLC
requirements. The current 4G long-term evolution (LTE) and NR hybrid automatic repeat request
(HARQ) are not quite appropriate to handle URLLC requirements. These methods depend on the
complete or partial retransmission (RTX) of the error packet with additional time for HARQ
processing, which is not suitable for time-critical applications [14]. An alternative method to achieve
a low block error rate (BLER) and avoid RTX is to allocate high resources to the system; however, this
might result in poor system capacity and low spectral efficiency. Therefore, there exists a trade-off
between reliability and latency, which can be based on the application requirements. The physical
layer plays a major role to achieve such a low latency and reliability; however, three major concerns
exist [15]. First, system overhead in term of channel access, user schedule, and allocation of resources
should be minimized. Second, the packet error probability should be minimized to achieve lower
latency because the retransmission of packets can affect the latency, as mentioned earlier. Third, the
transmission of URLLC packets should be prioritized, and they should be transmitted as soon as they
are generated. Although the requirements mentioned by 3GPP and ITU for URLLC are based on one-
way communication, latency should be defined on the basis of E2E communication [16].
coexistence on the same radio spectrum will open doors to new concerns in the scheduling
optimization [17].
eMBB eMBB
URLLC
URLLC
BS
The proposed agile 5G frame structure [18] shows promising results for URLLC latency
requirements by utilizing different transmission time intervals (TTIs) for URLLC and eMMB to meet
their desired spectral efficiencies (SE). For example, URLLC traffic can be scheduled on a smaller TTI
duration to achieve its low latency goal, and eMBB traffic can be scheduled with a long TTI duration
to maintain its extreme SE requirements. However, such a case will bring an additional overhead to
the control signaling, which can result in the degradation of the control channel (CCH) capacity [17].
Buffer UE 1 Buffer UE 2
BS
UE 2 UE 1
The NR defined by 3GPP for 5G has proposed two scheduling schemes, instant scheduling and
reservation-based scheduling, to handle URLLC packets [20]. The instant scheduling approach
proposes to facilitate URLLC packets whenever they are generated. Therefore, this scheduling can
interrupt the ongoing data transmission. Consequently, this approach can result in a drastic
degradation of other services. The reservation-based scheduling is further divided into two types,
semi-static and dynamic reservation, for effective handling of packets. Both approaches use a
reservation-based frame for URLLC, which results in overheads in the control signaling. In the case
of no URLLC data, the reserved slot may be wasted.
Electronics 2019, 8, 981 6 of 18
User Speed
Normal vehicle 120 km/h
Drones 160 km/h
High-speed vehicle 250 km/h
Trains 500 km/h
In 5G NR, the basic handover process is quite similar to that of the LTE handover [23]. NR
supports handover at two different levels to manage seamless handover. Cell level mobility is
managed using a radio resource control (RRC) layer in the same way as in the LTE handover. In
addition, the beam level mobility is handled using physical and medium access control (MAC) layers
without involving RRC for low latency [24]. As NR adopts the same handover signaling procedures
as the LTE [25], it inherits two unresolved issues of mobility robustness and mobility interruption
time (MIT). Because of the mentioned concerns, enhancements in NR are considered and proposed
to achieve zero handover interruption time (HIT) and handover failure (HOF) for URLLC [24].
Further studies are still needed to satisfy the requirements of URLLC QoS.
Resource Grant
Initial data transmission
ACK/NACK
ACK not received UE
Resource Grant
BS Initial data transmission
Figure 7. Options of the 5G architecture, multiple radio access technologies (RATs) [28].
The process of beam selection can affect the E2E performance and the QoS [28]. In order to
counter the key issues of achieving precise beamforming for performance enhancement [29], the
3GPP NR standard included new MAC and physical layer (PHY) features. The new MAC and PHY
features support directional communications [30], inter-network, and multi-network mechanism for
LTE [31]. Despite the additional standards, some of the issues related with the directional
communications and multi-connectivity are still unsolved. In the directional link, the requirement for
precise beamforming can affect E2E performance. On the other hand, the provided solution [31] for
multi-connectivity improves the mmWave network's E2E performance by merging a reliable sub-6
GHz link using LTE [32]. In 3GPP, the deployment of NR networks can be in standalone (SA) and
non-standalone (NSA) modes. In the SA mode, the NR core and radio access network (RAN) are
included, while LTE evolved packet core (EPC) and the LTE RAN are used in the NSA mode.
However, the practical implementation of such systems to support beam management with SA and
NSA is still an open issue [30].
Figure 8. Basic IoT operation over tactile internet on massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO).
Many potential real-time IoT operational issues can be overcome with the integration of the
tactile Internet [34], URLLC, and MIMO radio access technologies. In the following subsections, some
of the basic URLLC disputes are explained when operating IoT devices.
User Device
Automated Factory
Figure 9. Traditional machine learning (ML) concept (centralized). AI, artificial intelligence.
Electronics 2019, 8, 981 9 of 18
Most of the AI algorithms usually require a large data set to provide effective results. In
URLLC, however, it is a challenge to provide such a big data set for the mission-critical IoT
devices with reliability and low latency [38].
Because of the safety concern, European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) has
standardized safety protocols based on two awareness-based messages: decentralized environmental
notification message (DENM) and cooperative awareness message (CAM) [40]. To reflect vehicles
based on the mentioned safety standards, V2V communication should have the low latency
characteristic of URLLC. As discussed in Section 3.6, handover is still an issue in URLLC
implementation owing to the mobility of vehicles (as shown in Table 4) delivering safety standard
messages.
Figure 11. Illustration of a single user data packet and multiple user data packets relayed by a
server/cluster head.
One of the main issues with massive MIMO is to manage data generated with unpredictable
behavior [46]. It is essential to highlight that the building block of next-generation networks will be
data packets, which show an unpredictable data generation behavior in non-streaming applications
(such as social network applications and web browser).
5.1. Handover
Handover, which is one of the most crucial prominent issues in supporting URLLC
requirements, was also a part of the discussion in Release 16 of 3GPP. A way to support handover
while keeping low latency and jitter remains a significant concern. In 3GPP TS 23.502 [50], the
handover process requires a lossless handover. The source RAN node forwards data directly or
indirectly to the target RAN node. The use of tunnel is the current approach, but it introduces
additional jitter and latency. With this current approach, the issue remains open, and further studies
were suggested by 3GPP on the matter.
3GPP has branched out further aspects of studies, which include specification of the UE requirements
for URLLC and improvement of QoS monitoring ability of the defined mechanisms.
In Release 16 [49], a number of solutions to handle the mentioned issues were purposed and
evaluated. The idea that server supporting user equipment should be kept close to the user (i.e.,
topologically, geographically) was proposed. With this idea, the transmission latency between the
server and the base station could be minimized. In order to achieve high consistency, backhaul
reliability was suggested for further improvement.
Table 5. Contrast of core network and 5G RAN [51]. SA, standalone; NSA, non-standalone; EPC,
evolved packet core; 5GC, 5G core; LTE, long-term evolution; NR, new radio.
Options defined by 3GPP for 5G deployment use either existing EPC [53] or the 5GC [54]. Both
architectures follow different design principles. EPC can be considered as an evolution of earlier
generation packet-based core networks. 5GC is designed based on "cloud-native" approach, with
virtualization and cloud computing as its core. 5GC provides improved QoS features and superior
network slicing.
Table 6. Summary of issues discussed in the paper. AI, artificial intelligence; ML, machine learning.
Communication
Current Issue Possible Solution
Type
Shadowing, channel estimation
Local-Area Multi-connectivity, 5G NR, grand-
overhead
Communication free access
The mentioned communication methods in Figure 12 can probably be the key point in improving
overall efficiency for URLLC. A number of researchers have further proposed methods to improve
the communication methods in edge computing.
Figure 12. Three communication solutions for URLLC quality of service (QoS) requirements.
In the papers explained in Table 8 and numerous other papers on edge computing, it is
highlighted that the next generation networks should have a cloud-native approach in order to
achieve high reliability and low latency. Although some challenges still exist in implementing the
edge-computing systems (ECS) based approach for URLLC, ECS can further be improved and can
provide better QoS for 5G URLLC networks.
issues. Only a few researchers have worked on applying AI to the semantic and application layer to
propose traffic management solutions.
7. Conclusions
The main contribution of the paper is to provide researchers a fast and brief reference to some
of the core issues in the implementation of URLLC. Keeping in view the importance of IoT in the
coming era, this paper also covers a few most critical aspects of IoT and V2V communication over
URLLC. On the basis of issues being covered in this paper, some of the areas that are still open for
further investigation in URLLC improvements are also provided to readers. At the end of the article,
a possible solution using edge computing is proposed for URLLC implementation. This paper can
provide a comprehensive platform for researchers who are looking to study URLLC and its issues
with diverse services and applications.
Author Contributions: M.A.S. and H.Y. have written this paper and have done the research which supports it.
J.J. has reviewed the work.
Funding: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) (2019R1A2C1083988) and by the
MSIT, Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-2019-2016-0-
00313) supervised by the IITP (Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion) and in part
by the NRF grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2018R1A4A1023826).
References
1. Moakes, P. Embedded Signal Processing and RF Modules. Available online:
https://www.commagility.com/images/pdfs/white_papers/CommAgility_5G_New_Radio_white_pa
per.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2019).
2. Ghosh, A. 5G New Radio (NR): Physical Layer Overview and Performance. IEEE Communication
Theory Workshop. Available online: http://ctw2018.ieee-ctw.org/files/2018/05/5G-NR-CTW-final.pdf
(accessed on 20 August 2019).
3. Popovski, P.; Trillingsgaard, K.F.; Simeone, O.; Durisi, G. 5G Wireless Network Slicing for eMBB,
URLLC, and mMTC: A Communication-Theoretic View. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 55765–55779.
4. Mallinson, K. 3GPP-The Path to 5G: As much Evolution as Revolution. The Mobile Broadband
Standard. Available online: http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1774-5g_wiseharbour
(accessed on 20 August 2019).
5. Iwabuchi, M.; Benjebbour, A.; Kishiyama, Y.; Ren, G.; Tang, C.; Tian, T.; Gu, L.; Takada, T.; Kashima,
T. 5g Field Experimental Trials on URLLC Using New Frame Structure. In Proceedings of the 2017
IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC work shop), Singapore, 4–8 December 2017.
6. Lema, M.A.; Laya, A.; Mahmoodi, T.; Cuevas, M.; Sachs, J.; Markendahl, J.; Dohler, M. Business Case
and Technology Analysis for 5G Low Latency Applications. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 5917–5935.
7. Ericsson. NR URLLC Rel-16 Use Cases and Requirements. Available online: https://list.etsi.org
(accessed on 20 August 2019).
Electronics 2019, 8, 981 16 of 18
55. Lyamin, N.; Vinel, A.; Jonsson, M.; Bellalta, B. Cooperative Awareness in VANETs: On ETSI EN 302
637-2 Performance. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 17–28.
56. Mukherjee, A. Energy Efficiency and Delay in 5G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications
System Architectures. IEEE Netw. 2018, 32, 55–61.
57. Liu, J.H.; Zhang, Q. Offloading Schemes in Mobile Edge Computing for Ultra-Reliable Low Latency
Communications. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 12825–12837.
58. SK Telecom Unveils 5G Mobile Edge Computing Open Platform. Available online:
https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/sk-telecom-unveils-5g-mobile-edge-computing-open-
platform (accessed on 12 August 2019).
59. Vivek, K.; Singh, P.; Samundiswary, M. Sivasindhu. Cluster based Reliable Communication for 5G
Network. In Processings of the 2019 International Conference on Communication and Signal
Processing (ICCSP), Chennai, India, 4–6 April 2019.
60. Franco, D.; Aguado, M.; Toledo, N. An Adaptable Train-to-Ground Communication Architecture
Based on the 5G Technological Enabler SDN. MDPI Electron. 2019, 8, 660.
61. Antonakoglou, K.; Xu, X.; Steinbach, E.; Mahmoodi, T.; Dohler, M. Towards haptic communications
over the 5G tactile internet. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 3034–3059.
62. Sofana, R.S.; Tomislav, D.; Pierluigi, S.; Prabaharan, S.R.S. Future Generation 5GWireless Networks for
Smart Grid: A Comprehensive Review. MDPI Energ. 2019, 12, 2140.
63. Feng, D.Q.; She, C.Y.; Ying, K.; Lai, L.F.; Hou, Z.W.; Quek, T.Q.S.; Li, Y.H.; Vucetic, B. Toward Ultra-
reliable Low-Latency Communications: Typical Scenarios, Possible Solutions and Open Issues. IEEE
Veh. Technol. Mag. 2019, 14, 94–102.
64. Hu, Y.L.; Schmeink, A. Delay-Constrained Communication in Edge Computing Networks. In
Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 19th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless
Communications (SPAWC), Kalamata, Greece, 25–28 June 2018.
65. Elbamby, M.S.; Perfecto, C.; Liu, C.F.; Park, J.; Samarakoon, S.D.; Chen, X.F.; Bennis, M. Wireless Edge
Computing with Latency and Reliability Guarantees. Proc. IEEE 2019, 107, 1717–1737.
66. Duan, Y.F.; She, C.Y.; Zhao, G.D.; Quek, T.Q.S. Delay Analysis and Computing Offloading of URLLC
in Mobile Edge Computing Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on
Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP), Hangzhou, China, 18–20 October 2018.
67. Elbamby, M.S.; Bennis, M.; Saad, W.; Latva-aho, M.; Hong, C.S. Proactive edge computing in fog
networks with latency and reliability guarantees. J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2018, 209,
doi:10.1186/s13638-018-1218-y.
68. Eugenio, M.; Cayamcela, M.; Lim, W. Artificial Intelligence in 5G Technology: A Survey. In Proceedins
of the 2018 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence
(ICTC), Jeju, Korea, 17–19 October 2018.
69. Lin, I.C.; Sun, Q.; Liu, Z.M.; Zhang, S.M.; Han, S.F. The Big-Data-Driven Intelligent Wireless Network:
Architecture, Use Cases, Solutions, and Future Trends. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2017, 12, 20–29.
70. Jiang, C.X.; Zhang, H.J.; Ren, Y.; Han, Z.; Chen, K.C.; Hanzo, L. Machine Learning Paradigms for Next-
Generation Wireless Networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2016, 24, 98–105.
71. Fu, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, C.X.; Hong, X.M. Stephen McLaughlin. Artificial Intelligence to Manage
Network Traffic of 5G Wireless Networks. IEEE Netw. 2018, 32, 58–64.
72. IEEE. IEEE 5g and Beyond Technology Roadmap White Paper. Available online:
https://futurenetworks.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/ieee-5g-roadmap-white-paper.pdf (accessed on 27
August 2019).
73. Condoluci, M.; Mahmoodi, T. Softwarization and virtualization in 5G mobile networks: Benefits,
trends and challenges. Elsevier Comput. Netw. 2018, 146, 65–84.
74. Ahmad, I.; Shahabuddin, S.; Kumar, T.; Okwuibe, J.; Gurtov, A.; Ylianttila, M. Security for 5G and
Beyond. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2019, doi:10.1109/COMST.2019.2916180.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).