Está en la página 1de 18

Ericsson Services Inc.

EVDO Multi-Carrier Site Optimization-ALU

Ericsson Services Inc.


03/12/2010

Table of Contents
1. GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. 1.2. 1.3. PURPOSE ...............................................................................................................................................3 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................3 RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................................................3

2.

EVDO MULTI-CARRIER SITE OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................ 4


2.1. 2.2. 2.3. INTRODUCYIOON ...................................................................................................................................4 DEFFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................4 POSSIBLE Fn CARRIER CONFIGURATIONS ....6

3.

SCENARIO A: ORIGINATING/NON-BORDER AND NHD CONFIGURATION .......................... 7


3.1. 3.2. 3.3. SUITABLE ENTRANCE CRITERIA...................................................................................................7 SERVICE MEASUREMENTS TO MONITOR .....................................................................................7 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON KPIS 8

4. SCENARIO B: ORIGINATING/NON-BORDER AND HD CONFIGURATIONERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.


4.1. 4.2. 4.3. SUITABLE ENTRANCE CRITERIA ............................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SERVICE MEASUREMENTS TO MONITOR ............................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.3 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON KPIS..13

5. SCENARIO C: NON-ORIGINATING/BORDER AND HD CONFIGURATIONERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.


5.1. 5.2. 5.3. SUITABLE ENTRANCE CRITERIA ............................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SERVICE MEASUREMENTS TO MONITOR ............................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON KPIS...14

6.

CASE STUDY............................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.


6.1. OBSERVATION ............................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

7. 8.

FUTURE IFHO FEATURE/PARAMETER TESTING ........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Page 2 of 18

1. General
1.1. Purpose
This document provides basic guidelines & framework regarding EVDO multi-carrier site/sector (Fn, n > 2) Optimization.

1.2. Scope
This document; EVDO Multi-Carrier Site Optimization-ALU, is one of the EVDO IFHO Optimization & Troubleshooting Guidelines documents. It defines three IFHO configurations and provides a framework on how to improve potential performance impacts for each configuration. This document applies to only ALU EVDO network.

1.3. Responsibilities
RF Technical Team is responsible for maintaining and updating the information provided in this document. For any question/information regarding this or the companion Multi-Carrier Site Troubleshooting/Optimization Guidelines documents, contact the team members identified in the Table below.

Name
Sean Amirmehrabi Telesphore Pegnyemb

Area of Responsibility
Team Lead/SME SME

Phone Number
714-617-9372 714-617-9357

Position
RFIII, EVDO Performance RPO, Technical Team RFIII, Field EVDO Performance POC

Region/Market
West Region Orange County/Inland Empire

Below is the list of the companion documents; y y y EVDO Fn Configuration (ALU) ppt file EVDO Multi-Carrier Translation Parameters Excel spreadsheet Carrier-Level Connection Failure Rate & Connection Drop Rate Method of Calculations Excel Spreadsheet

Page 3 of 18

2.

EVDO MULTI CARRIER SITE OPTIMIZATION: BORDER/NONBORDER CONFIGURATION CONSIDERATIONS


2.1. Introduction

Upon the activation of an Fn (n>1) EVDO carrier on a non-ubiquitous network (not all cell have Fn carriers), the issue of configuring this new carrier (Border/Non-Originating, Non-Border/Originating, Hand-Down or Non Hand-Down) arises. The goal of this document is to discuss all plausible scenarios and the potential impact to performance KPIs.

2.2.

DEFINITIONS

Border/Non-Originating Carrier - A Border sector-carrier (discontinuing carrier) is one whose frequency is not supported as the AT moves away from the sector. With Lucent Base Stations, one has the ability to set an Fn carrier as Border through the translation parameter Border Carrier. A Border carrier is excluded from the Channel List (# of Channels) in the Sector Parameter Message. This will eliminate the Border carrier from Idle AT Hashing process (see Fig 1). As a result, the idle AT will not be able to monitor an Fn Border carrier, hence, calls cannot be originated (although, can be assigned) on that carrier (Non-Originating Carrier). Non-Border/Originating Carrier - An Fn carrier which is not set as Border is considered a NonBorder carrier and is included in the Channel List (# of Channels). Therefore, idle ATs may hash onto Fn (see Figure 1), and as a result, calls can be Originated on Fn.

Figure 1 EVDO Idle AT Hashing Algorithm Inherent benefits of Non-Border vs. Border configuration are two folds; one, reduction in the number of cross-carrier Traffic Channel Assignment (TCA), and two, better balance on Access & Control Channels Occupancy.
Page 4 of 18

Hand-Down (HD) Carrier - When a sector-carrier is configured to perform hand-down (IFHO), also known as Hard HO, from Fn to Fp (n > p), it is called a HD sector-carrier. Otherwise, it is known as a Non-HD (NHD) sector-carrier. There are two types of IFHOs; MAIFHO (Mobile Assisted IFHO) and Directed IFHO. MAIFHO This type of IFHO is performed if AT (MSM6500 chipset) is capable of OFS (Off Frequency Searching, RUM contains pilot PN Ec/Io from the frequency that is different from ATs current frequency). This feature is Enabled through the maifhoEnable parameter. AT starts OFS (every 5.12 sec during scheduled 3G1x tune-away, after returning from 3G1x) when the serving pilot PN Ec/Io falls below -5 dB. Directed IFHO This type of IFHO is used by the ATs that are not capable of OFS (MSM 5500 chipset). Directed IFHO is based on the same channel serving Active Set pilot strength reported in RUM. Directed IFHO may be used by both AT types; those which support OFS (MSM 6500) and those which dont (MSM 5500). The following diagram shows the decision process regarding the type of IFHO selected. For detail information, refer to ALUs Translation Application Note #4.

Figure 2 IFHO Type selection Decision Process


Page 5 of 18

2.3.

Possible Fn Carrier Configurations

The following EVDO Fn carrier configurations are considered in this document. A. Originating/Non-Border and NHD Sector-Carrier (no IFHO) B. Originating/Non-Border and HD Sector-Carrier (IFHO) C. Non-Originating/Border and HD Sector-Carrier (IFHO) The Non-Originating and NHD sector-carrier CAN NOT STAND adequate performance requirements, therefore, is not considered. For each scenario; y y y Suitable Entrance Criteria Potential KPI Impacts Possible Remedies

are discussed in sections 3, 4, and 5.

Page 6 of 18

3.

SCENARIO A: Originating/Non-Border and NHD Configuration


With this configuration, calls can be originated on the Fn sector-carrier but there will not be HD (i.e. no IFHO) from Fn to the lower carrier(s) Fp. This means that no HD Neighbor List (NL) is configured. One point to keep in mind is that although calls can originate on Fn, call assignment (TCA) is governed by the R32 RSSI-Based load balancing algorithm (same for Scenarios B & C, sections 4 & 5). This load balancing algorithm is considered in more detail in Scenario C (section 5). On a network with very few Fn EVDO carriers, this carrier tends to be free of noise (interference from adjacent Fn carrier) and thus its Ec/Io will be much greater (about 5dB and above) than that of the underlying common carrier(s) Fp. As a direct consequence, one could expect that the footprint of this Fn EVDO carrier to be bigger than that of the Fp carrier. The figure below illustrates such scenario with n=2, p=1.

F1 footprin F2 t

F2 footp rint

Figure 3 - F2/F1 Footprint Mismatch

3.1.

Suitable Entrance Criteria

This configuration is suitable for very low mobility traffic scenarios such as those in baseball parks, attractions parks, convention centers, in-buildings, or any special events where F2 signal has limited to no interaction with the rest of the network (isolated military base is a good example).

3.2.

Service Measurements to Monitor

Below Table shows a list of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) to monitor with each configuration (Scenarios A, B, & C) that is described in this document. Currently, RFSM, Flux, and SODA do not have consistent/accurate Carrier-Level metrics for CFR, RF Access Failure Rate, and CDR. Requirements, including method of calculations (see the EVDO MultiCarrier Access Failure & Drop Calculation spreadsheet) regarding Carrier-Level RF Access Failure Rate & CDR are submitted to the Flux team which will be implemented in R33 Flux update. In the meantime, efforts are underway to have SODA implementation sooner.
Page 7 of 18

Primary KPIs (SLA)


Connection Failure Rate RF Access Failure Rate Connection Drop Rate DRC CFR (Block%) RF Access Fail% CDR (Drop%) Avrg DRC Req Rate (Kbps)

Secondary KPIs
Traffic/Load Avrg Active Connection Data Tx Slot Utilization RL Noise Rise (dB) FL Throughput FL Burst Rate RL Throughput Per User Throughput HHO -Requesting Sect HHO -Target Sect SSOR HO-Requesting Sect SSOR HO-Target Sect AVG_ACTIVE_CONN_PER_SECTOR Fwd PHY Data Tx (MB) Total Slot Utilization% SM_ENHANCED_AVG_RSSIRISE Fwd PHY Data Rate (Kbps) FL Burst Rate (Kbps) RL PHY Data Rate (Kbps) Per User Throughput (Kbps) HHO Success Rate-Req Sect HHO Success Rate-Target Sect SSOR HO Success-Req Sect SSOR HO Success-Target Sect

Performance

Mobility

Table 1: List of KPIs (Performance Metrics & Peg Counts) to Monitor

3.3.

Potential Impact on KPIs

With this configuration, KPIs to consider are: Connection Failure Rate (CFR) or Block%, Connection Requests (CR) or Minutes Of Use (MOU), and possibly the Connection Drop Rate/Drop% (CDR). y Connection Failure Rate - As a direct consequence of the cleaner Fn carrier, Fn RF signal will propagate much further than Fp signal and this can lead to increased failed connection attempts on Fn (higher CFR/Blocks% on Fn than on Fp), and as a result, higher overall sector CFR. One should be cautious in reading current RFSM/Flux carrier-level CFR & Drop% reports due to cross-carrier pegging issues. Connection Requests/MOUs - Since the signal strength on Fn is stronger (less interference on Fn) than the one on the Fp carrier, one could expect to see more connection requests on Fn than on Fp as illustrated on the graph below.

Page 8 of 18

5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 67_1_1 67_1_2

Figure 4 - Higher CRs on F2 as a result of a stronger Ec/Io

y Possible CFR Remedies


Fn Power Attenuation - A possible remedy for the high CFR on Fn carrier is to attenuate the power on this carrier, compared to Fp, by a few dB (at least 3dB). But, we should watch for potential impact on Forward Link (FL) Throughput due to the lower SINR seen by all ATs in Fn coverage area which could translate into lower DRC request by ATs. A good way to fine tune the power attenuation on Fn carrier is to use a before/after Reveal (use the link below) plot for the sector of interest.
http://reveal.nmcc.sprintspectrum.com/Reveal/

Starting with 3 dB attenuation, one can keep increasing the attenuation until the desired footprint of the sector (within Tier 1 neighbors and no further than 4 miles is a good rule of thumb) is achieved. Next two figures illustrate before/after sector coverage after 6 dB attenuation. Remark - Preferably, if possible at all, one should consider controlling the footprint of the overall sector through physical optimization, such as antenna down-tilt, as long as the integrity of the voice network is preserved since the antennas are shared across both technologies.

Page 9 of 18

Figure 5 - Sector Connection Requests in Green Before 6dB Attenuation (top) and after 6dB attenuation (bottom)

Page 10 of 18

RF Load Differential Parameter Optimization (Load Balancing) With R32, RSSI Rise based load balancing algorithm is used (provided that all carriers are Rev A) for both Rev 0 and Rev A ATs. To enable this algorithm, borderNonBorderRatio (Border and Non-Border Loading Ratio) parameter should be set to a value between 1 100 (current setting is 10). The algorithm works as follows (see ALUs TAN #1, version 15: Timing, Delay, and Access Parameters for details); y For each carrier in the sector, Loading L is calculated: L = 1 (1/RoT). RoT (Rise over Thermal) is the RSSI Rise in linear scale. If Number of Active Users on the Orig_Carrier < Max Number of User Supported (Rev 0/Rev A) AND [L_Orig L_Target (lease loaded carrier) ] < RF Load Differential, then, Originating Carrier is selected; otherwise, least loaded Target Carrier will be selected.

Current setting of the RF Load Differential (rfLoadDifferential) is 0.1. In general, lower RF Load Differential provides effective load balancing between carriers (more call assignments on Fn), hence, more cross carrier assignment, and as a result, more risk of CFs. On the other hand, the higher the value for this parameter, more calls will be assigned to Fp (less cross-carrier call assignment) and less risk of CF. Therefore, there is a tradeoff between load balancing and CF performance. Unfortunately, RF Load Differential parameter is a SN (SN II) parameter. Starting with R33, Auxiliary Per Sector Control 1 parameter can be used to set RF Loading at the sector level. This provides flexibility in fine tuning RF Load Differential parameter depending on the engineering objective. For example, if the objective is to shift more traffic to Fn (capacity considerations) and the sector-carrier can tolerate some performance (CFR) hit, one may consider fine tuning this parameter towards lower values. On the other hand, if the objective is to improve/maintain performance (CFR), fine tuning towards higher values may be considered. For any of the three scenarios described in this document, above objectives should be evaluated. In Scenario C, it is shown that how RSSI Rise peg count (SM_ENHANCED_AVG_RSSIRISE) can be used to fine tune RF Load Differential parameter from CFR (performance) perspective. For now (until R33), fine tuning of this parameter may be considered, only, at the SN level and from either Performance or Capacity perspective.

Remark For parameter optimization we need to follow current Parameter Testing process.

Page 11 of 18

Connection Drop Rate Given the confined area of coverage in this configuration, one should not expect to see a measurable impact on sector CDR.

y Possible CDR Remedies


Should the sector CDR increase due to Fn footprint reduction to alleviate high CFR, one could explore disabling the Soft Slope parameter by setting the value to 0 from 1.75 (this is for the scenario where Fn-to-Fn SHO is a possibility). The reason being that with power attenuation, all ATs in Fn coverage area will be receiving weaker Ec/Io, particularly, in SHO areas, and as a result, Dynamic Add Threshold may not be met for a successful HO. This, potentially, could cause the call to be dropped. With Soft Slope disabled, there would be less stringent requirements for pilot add to the active set, hence, higher chance for a successful HO and lower probability for call to be dropped. This needs to be tested and evaluated very carefully since Soft Slope is a sector-level and not sector-carrier level parameter. A parameter exception must be filed if disabling Soft Slope proves to be helpful in improving the sector/carrier CDR.

Page 12 of 18

4.

SCENARIO B: Originating/Non-Border and HD Configuration


With this configuration, calls can be originated on Fn sector-carrier and there could be HD (i.e. IFHO) from Fn to the lower carrier(s) Fp based on the IFHO parameters configuration. As it is described in scenario A, number of CRs on Fn would be likely greater than those on Fp, hence, a potential risk of high CFR.

4.1.

Suitable Entrance Criteria

This configuration, compared to the one used in scenario A, is often used where the traffic is somewhat more mobile (low mobility). One example of when this configuration may be used is; parking lot of a sport venue (sport stadiums for instance).

4.2.

Service Measurements to Monitor

Since this configuration includes IFHO, corresponding IFHO metrics besides CFR & CDR need to be evaluated. Refer to Table1 for the list of KPIs to monitor.

4.3.

Potential Impact on KPIs

With this configuration, KPIs to consider are: Connection Failure Rate (CFR) or Block%, Connection Requests (CR) or Minutes Of Use (MOU), and the Connection Drop Rate/Drop% (CDR). y y y Connection Failure Rate Same impact and remedies as in Scenario A (section 3). Connection Requests/MOUs Same impact and remedies as in Scenario A (section 3). Connection Drop Rate: Since Fn is configured as HD carrier, IFHO occurrences have a high probability. Hence, there is a risk of increase in CDR due to excessive IFHO failures on the top of regular RF reasons (Drop due to RLL peg count). Possible CDR Remedies

IFHO metrics should be investigated for high IFHO failures (see Table 1). If this is the case, first, comprehensive audit of the IFHO parameters must be performed. Refer to the EVDO Fn Integration document (ppt file) and EVDO Multi-Carrier Translation Parameter spreadsheet. Second, we need to check and see whether or not IFHOProcThresh (IFHO Processing Threshold) parameter is set at the recommended value of 6 (3 dB). This is a R32 Sector-Carrier parameter that governs Border versus Interior Pilot threshold (i.e. applicable more to the case when there is a cluster of Fn sites in which case Interior pilots are Fn pilots) and applies to both Directed IFHO and MAIFHO. With this parameter, un-necessary IFHO is avoided since IFHO evaluation is considered only if the pilot strength of the strongest IFHO enabled leg in the active set is greater than the pilot strength of the strongest non-IFHO leg in the active set by this threshold. In other words, IFHO is avoided when the call can survive on the same channel. Further fine tuning of this parameter may be considered. If Fn footprint reduction (as described in Scenario A) is applied, similar suggested remedy (disabling Soft Slope) for Scenario A may be considered.
Page 13 of 18

5.

SCENARIO C: Non-Originating/Border and HD configuration


This is the classic or most used Fn configuration in current Sprint EVDO network. With this configuration, Fn is set as a Border carrier and as a result calls cannot originate on Fn, although, they could be assigned to it when RSSI Rise based load balancing (RNC R32) conditions, as described in Scenario A, are met.

5.1.

Suitable Entrance Criteria

This configuration is mostly used for high mobility traffic where sustaining a call at the edge or beyond Fn footprint is challenging. Typically, sectors serving freeways and main roads are good candidates for this configuration. We must avoid using this configuration for sectors at the edge of EVDO coverage area (i.e. there is no EVDO coverage beyond the footprint of these sectors).

5.2.

Service Measurements to Monitor

Since this configuration includes IFHO, corresponding IFHO metrics plus CFR & CDR need to be evaluated and monitored very closely. Refer to Table1 for the list of KPIs to monitor.

5.3.

Potential Impact on KPIs

With this configuration, KPIs to consider are: Connection Failure Rate (CFR), Connection Requests (CR) or Minutes Of Use (MOU), and the Connection Drop Rate (CDR). y Connection Failure Rate Since Fn is a Border carrier (calls always originate on Fp), due to frequent cross-carrier assignment, potentially, risk of increase in CFR on Fn (and sector) is high. MOUS/CRs Since Fn is the Border carrier, Fp averages higher MOUs. Connection Drop Rate: Since Fn is configured as HD carrier in a high mobility area, there would be a high level of IFHO occurrences (for example, calls may be handed down to another carrier, via IFHO, immediately following call setup). Hence, there is a risk of increase in CDR due to excessive IFHO failures on the top of regular RF reasons (Drop due to RLL peg count). Possible CFR Remedies

y y

Since Fn is configured as a Border carrier (no call origination on Fn), frequent cross-carrier assignment per load balancing algorithm is expected which could potentially impact CFR, negatively. To mitigate this risk, fine tuning of the RF Load Differential parameter (RSSI Rise based load balancing algorithm), as described in Scenario A, may be considered. With RNC R32, this parameter is available at SN (SN II) level, only. The smaller the RF Load Differential value (range from 0.00 to 1.0), the more assignments will be going to Fn. If the
Page 14 of 18

objective is to improve/maintain acceptable CFR, fine tuning of this parameter towards higher values (currently at 0.1, ALU recommendation: 0.2) should be considered. Table 2 shows the mapping between RSSI Rise and a suitable RF Load Differential value. Since until R33, this parameter is not available at the Sector Level; fine tuning of this parameter could be done considering all multi-carrier sites in the switch.

Table 2 Mapping between RSSI Rise & RF Load Differential Values For a given Service Node (Switch), to take advantage of the mapping shown in Table 2, one can obtain the average RSSI Rise by trending the service measurements peg count; SM_ENHANCED_AVG_RSSIRISE for all multi-carrier sites. Considering the distribution of sector-carriers over different levels of RSSI Rise, a suitable value for RF Load Differential parameter can be identified using the mapping in Table 2. y Possible CDR Remedies

IFHO metrics should be investigated for high IFHO failures (see Table 1). If this is the case, first, comprehensive audit of the IFHO parameters must be performed. Refer to the EVDO Fn Integration document (ppt file) and EVDO Multi-Carrier Translation Parameter spreadsheet. Second, a good setting of the RF Load Differential could actually help to improve the CDR on the Fn carrier as fewer calls are subjected to HD. Thirdly, we need to check and see whether or not IFHOProcThresh (IFHO Processing Threshold) parameter is set at the recommended value of 6 (3 dB). This is a R32 Sector-Carrier parameter that governs Border versus Interior Pilot threshold (this is the case when there is a cluster of F2 sites in which case Interior pilots are F2 pilots) and applies to both Directed IFHO and MAIFHO. With this parameter, un-necessary IFHO is avoided since IFHO evaluation is considered only if the pilot strength of the strongest IFHO enabled leg in the active set is greater than the pilot strength of the strongest non-IFHO leg in the active set by this threshold. In other words, IFHO is avoided when the call can survive on the same channel. Further fine tuning of this parameter may be considered. If Fn footprint reduction (as described in Scenario A) is applied, similar suggested remedy (disabling Soft Slope) in Scenario A may be considered.
Page 15 of 18

6.

Case Study
IE2 switch (SN 47) was selected as a test case for fine tuning of the rfLoadDifferential parameter. Using above method (distribution of sector-carriers over different level of RSSI Rise) & Table 2, it was found that about 78% of the 17 (some site/sectors are removed due to site issues) multi-carrier sites had an average RSSI Rise less than 3 dB while 60% of them were above 1.55 dB. Considering this distribution & Table 2, a value of 0.4 was selected for the RF Load Differential parameter. Table 3 (below) shows the cluster-level summary for pre/post results.

17 F2 sites of SN 47 Sector Level Data Baseline (2/18 to 2/23)

Connect Requests 75,856

Daily Avg MOUS

Daily Cross Carrier Assignments 21,006

Block%

Drop%

DRC (Kbps)

24,615

0.68

0.57

1,413

Post (3/4 to 3/9)

72,406

25,336

6,334

0.39

0.56

1,378

Table 3 It is worth noticing that there has been a significant reduction in daily cross carrier assignments (from 21006 to 6334, about 70%) at the sector level. For details, see the excel files in the Appendix. Attached Spreadsheet (Summary_SEC tab) shows the pre/post results at both Cell-Sector & Cluster levels for the rest of the KPIs listed in Table 1.

IE2 Pre-Post.xlsx

Below (Table 4) is a cluster-level summary view regarding Throughput KPIs. Tier1+Modified


Throughput KPIs BBH Fwd Phy Data Rate (kbps) BBH Rvs Phy Data Rate (kbps) BBH Fwd Phy Data Rate Per User (kbps) PRE
1,368 57 501

POST
1,314 63 381

%Change
-4% 11% - 4%

Table 4

Page 16 of 18

6.1.

Observations
y Improvement or no/minimal negative change on some KPIs (CFR, CDR, DRC, ), and degradation regarding others like Per User Throughput (see Table 4) is noticed. In this study, RF Load Differential was changed at the SN level and different Fn/HD configurations (Scenarios A, B, C) could have different sensitivity to this SN test value. For example, if F2 is configured as Border (Scenario C), with rfLoadDifferential at 0.4 ( > 0.1), more calls/users will be assigned to F1. This can be verified considering the Average Active Connection peg count for F1 & F2. As a result, F1 (and overall sector) per User Throughput could be impacted, particularly, if number of users on F1 were already above some level (for example, Average Active Connection > 10). Since this is a SN parameter, until R33, it is recommended that any testing/optimization of rfLoadDifferential parameter by the market (EVDO POC), for load balancing purposes, should go through existing parameter testing process (involving Regional EVDO RPO & Sprint ND&E). Market need to identify/evaluate the engineering objective and consider the tradeoffs between performance & traffic/load balancing, in general, and amongst different performance indicators (i.e. CFR, CDR, DRC, Throughput, .), in particular, for such testing.

7.

Future IFHO Feature/Parameter Testing


The following features to be tested/optimized for further IFHO performance improvement. y Distance based Origination/Termination - To minimize cross carrier assignments and at the same time not significantly sacrificing load balancing. Distance Based IFHO Preparation for FIT is underway.

Page 17 of 18

APPENDIX

CRoss_Carrier_Assig n_SN47_Baseline_Da

CRoss_Carrier_Assig n_SN47_Post_1day_2

Page 18 of 18