How PRB utilization is impacted by inactivity timer change?

[RFSpecialist]

Actually high frequency 2300 is capacity layer while 1800-850 is coverage layer and is should be opposite as you say

The priorities in idle and mobility params in connected will rule where the user stay, not tilts, when all 4 layers will be available in a specific point.

[Zubairullahshah]

@gdtelecomm

If high frequency layer is more downtilted than low frequency than coverage footprint imbalance will be there.

High frequency layer is having ret value less than ret of low frequency as higher frequencies having low coverage footprint as compared to lower frequency.

Yes. Thanks for correction because 700/800 having more penetratation should be +2 or +3 with compared to L18/L23.

[AhmedKenzy]

@SimoSamKun

Yes, exactly. My point is that RRC requests rapidly increased following the timer reduction.
Which make sense in terms of signaling.

Exactly, the false gain in RRC SR and even drops due to increased attempts.

While the drawback would be increased delay and high signaling load.

[arnab_ece05]

@SimoSamKun

Is this pure Wireless issue? Cannot be detected somehow in a better way.

In Ericsson system, you can identify branch wise electical tilt, chances of putting electrical tilt in one band and another getting affected is less.

[cjounda]

Very interesting topic…

Meanwhile reducing Inactivity timer will lead to more signaling, congestion.

The best and effective action is to balance traffic between layers and do physical tuning as well.

Many optimizers don’t really plan the GUL strategy especially in Idle mode and just want to rush into settings/feature.

[Mustafa_Rawat]

Incase of multiple layers the load should be balanced for sure. I won’t mind reducing the inactivity timer to lower values unless we end up in rejections due to processor load due to increased signaling. Especially in single-band nodes with the capacity crunch

[erkan_er]

what do you think about lowering inactivity timer on mass events

[ervikassinghal]

Hi
by reduction in inactivity timer,RRC attempts will increase then how PRB utilization will decrease.Please elaborate

[ervikassinghal]

u r right,in my case small cell is serving in cricket ground.can i reduce inactivity timer to avoid overload crunch in small cell having capacity of 256 users only.

[Deepak_Joshi]

Am wondering, whether reduction is significant?
Since it’s only SRB consumption (RRC layer) , you should not be with MAC layer…
Moreover, RRC signaling is increased with reduced timer? So overall SRB occupied PRB may increase or same…

[Ankur]

If we reduce value of inactivity timer like…20ms/10ms/5ms/3ms…it will decrease PRB Utilisation but RRC Connection request will increase …best way for High PRB is layer balancing(MLB) …shift traffic between layers

[Rodrigo_Gonzalez]

And will improve Drop Rate…