Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 143 views

    Ping Test Justification Update - 20181204

    Uploaded by

    joko priyono
    The ping latency KPI failed due to the remote location of the tested site. Several factors contribute to increased latency, including distance from the ping server, multiple microwave hops, and routing through various network nodes. However, additional tests show latency is normal for the wireless connection, and optimization efforts have been made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ping Test Justification Update - 20181204

    Uploaded by

    joko priyono
    143 views4 pages
    The ping latency KPI failed due to the remote location of the tested site. Several factors contribute to increased latency, including distance from the ping server, multiple microwave hops, and routing through various network nodes. However, additional tests show latency is normal for the wireless connection, and optimization efforts have been made.

    Original Title

    PING TEST JUSTIFICATION UPDATE - 20181204 (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The ping latency KPI failed due to the remote location of the tested site. Several factors contribute to increased latency, including distance from the ping server, multiple microwave hops, and routing through various network nodes. However, additional tests show latency is normal for the wireless connection, and optimization efforts have been made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    143 views4 pages

    Ping Test Justification Update - 20181204

    Uploaded by

    joko priyono
    The ping latency KPI failed due to the remote location of the tested site. Several factors contribute to increased latency, including distance from the ping server, multiple microwave hops, and routing through various network nodes. However, additional tests show latency is normal for the wireless connection, and optimization efforts have been made.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    PING TEST JUSTIFICATION for SITE UNDER NFV SOLO but PING to BR Router

    SURABAYA (202.67.40.34)

    Ping time latency (RTT Ping 32) KPI failed.


    - Ping latency not achieve since the EnodeB is located far from the server which we are trying
    to ping and it also passing through several hop and hub site to core and ping server.
    Currently ping server using 202.67.40.34 which is locate at Surabaya. Aside this is also
    having “X” number of microwave hops which will also affect the latency.
    - Optimization for latency has been as below:
     PreAllocMinPeriodForSparse = 1ms
     SmartPreAllocDuraForSparse = 2000ms
     PreallocationSizeForSparse = 80
     MOD CELLDLSCHALGO: LocalCellId=x, RbgAllocStrategy = ROUND_UP;

    - We also conduct sample test from EnodeB to MME (NFV Solo), result is around 7-9 ms with
    average 16 ms while theoretical latency from UE to EnodeB 6-8 ms means latency for
    wireless part is still normal.

    - Exclude ppt file dari justifikasi.


    - Tambahkan capture hasil speedtest dengan SERVER H3i Solo sebagai perbandingan dan
    ditambahkan kalimat dibawah sesuai hasil speedtest
    - Remark jika speedtest < 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping already achieve <20
    ms and showing no issue from RF-Wireless part
    4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    - Remark jika speedtest > 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping latency is > 20 ms
    inline with moving ping latency test, but still in acceptable value.
    - Tambahkan topology & table hop / hub site seperti biasa.

    PING TEST JUSTIFICATION for NON NFV SOLO (SGSN SURABAYA)

    Ping time latency (RTT Ping 32) KPI failed.


    - Moving ping latency not achieve since the EnodeB is still under SGSN Surabaya (S1306)
    which given longer E2E latency compared to other Cities/EnodeB under NFV Solo (S1101),
    for justification refer to justification slide from Huawei SME HQ below.
    - Enodeb also located far away from the server which we are trying to ping, for Enodeb under
    S1306-SBY we’re using BR router Surabaya 202.67.40.34. Below picture is showing the
    E2E latency results as 40ms, but the theoretical latency from EnodeB to server is already
    occupying 25ms due the server distance. Meaning the radio interface latency is, 40ms –
    25ms = 15ms. This results proves latency is normal for wireless part (currently Pre
    Scheduling). Aside this is also having “X” number of microwave hops which will also affect
    the latency.
    - Optimization for latency has been as below:
     PreAllocMinPeriodForSparse = 1ms
     SmartPreAllocDuraForSparse = 2000ms
     PreallocationSizeForSparse = 80
     MOD CELLDLSCHALGO: LocalCellId=x, RbgAllocStrategy = ROUND_UP;

    - We also conduct sample test from EnodeB to S1306-SBY, result is around 14-16 ms with
    average 15 ms while theoretical latency from UE to EnodeB 6-8 ms means latency for
    wireless part is still normal.

    Justification Ping Latency Not Passed

    Revision number: 00 2 Document Title : 4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    of

    4 Release status: Released


    4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    Ping DT Methodology
    v2.4.pptx

    - Tambahkan capture speedtest dengan server AUTO / BEST SERVER sebagai


    perbandingan dan ditambahkan kalimat dibawah sesuai hasil speedtest
    - Remark jika speedtest < 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping already achieve <20
    ms and showing no issue from RF-Wireless part
    - Remark jika speedtest > 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping latency is > 20 ms
    inline with moving ping latency test, but still in acceptable value.
    - Tambahkan topology & table hop / hub site seperti biasa.

    PING TEST JUSTIFICATION NFV SOLO

    Ping time latency (RTT Ping 32) KPI failed.


    - Moving ping latency not achieve while already using IP Solo server to do ping test, EnodeB
    is passing through several hop / hub site to MME then ping server, which might given longer
    E2E latency while through it. Aside this is also having “X” number of microwave hops which
    will also affect the latency.
    - Currently ping server already using IP 114.142.168.252 / 114.142.168.253 which is locate
    at Solo.
    - Optimization for latency has been as below:
     PreAllocMinPeriodForSparse = 1ms
     SmartPreAllocDuraForSparse = 2000ms
     PreallocationSizeForSparse = 80
     MOD CELLDLSCHALGO: LocalCellId=x, RbgAllocStrategy = ROUND_UP;

    - We already conduct sample test from EnodeB to MME (NFV Solo), result is around 7-9 ms
    with average 16 ms while theoretical latency from UE to EnodeB 6-8 ms means latency for
    wireless part is still normal.

    Revision number: 00 3 Document Title : 4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    of

    4 Release status: Released


    4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    - Exclude ppt file dari justifikasi.


    - Tambahkan capture hasil speedtest dengan SERVER H3i Solo sebagai perbandingan dan
    ditambahkan kalimat dibawah sesuai hasil speedtest
    - Remark jika speedtest < 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping already achieve <20
    ms and showing no issue from RF-Wireless part
    - Remark jika speedtest > 20 ms : Based on ookla speedtest result, ping latency is > 20 ms
    inline with moving ping latency test, but still in acceptable value.
    - Tambahkan topology & table hop / hub site seperti biasa.

    Revision number: 00 4 Document Title : 4G LEVEL 1 KPI Report

    of

    4 Release status: Released

    You might also like