Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

HO PARAMETER

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • Author
    Posts
  • 30th January 2007 at 13:13 #46489
    PRO
    Guest

    1.WE ARE FACING THE PROBLEM IN THE HO TO MEET THE KPT,SO IN CASE NO ISSUES IN NEIGH DEF IN ALL THE SITES EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE PROBLEM IN THE HO’S IN THE INTERNAL BSC’S.

    2.ALSO WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE BSC BORDERS.THE STATS SHOWS THE 100% FAILURES EVEN THOUGH U DIFINE IN BOTHWAYS.

    PLS SUGGEST US TO WHICH SHOULD DIFINE PROPERLY.

    SHELL WE HAVE TO DEFINE IT IN NSS ALSO ABOUT THE HO PARAMETRS,IF IT IS THERE PLS LET ME KNOW.

    REGARDS,
    PROMOD

    30th January 2007 at 14:41 #46490
    Confucious
    Guest

    Can you specify your question and say what you have set up and what the problem is, and I assume you are using Nokia equipment

    31st January 2007 at 05:18 #46491
    promod
    Guest

    Exactly we are using the NOKIA equipments.We have the problem with HO in the BSC borders even though we have difined in bothways.

    Ex:suppose if there is 1200 attempts and these attemts will not get succeded.This will be there vise versa also

    Suggest us what and all changes to be made..

    1st February 2007 at 06:26 #46492
    Da Architect
    Guest

    PROMOD,

    if the BSC are of diff LAC, then NSS must define LAC adjacencies.

    2nd February 2007 at 13:11 #46493
    Promod
    Guest

    thanks for the information.

    One more thing if we have the UPLINK handovers are there.Can you explain how can we reduce this problem.

    Regards,
    Sudheendra.K

    2nd February 2007 at 13:40 #46494
    gyandev
    Guest

    plz help me out with how can we 1800 band trx along with 900 band trx’s?

    6th February 2007 at 08:05 #46495
    Tomar
    Guest

    Hi Promod,
    If you have a lot of handovers with cause UPLINK, than at first check parameters – Threshold, which define this Imperative HO. If it is OK than install TMA.
    The best solution how to decrease number of Imperative HO (UL or DL) is to built new site (or sites)
    BR
    Tomar

    7th February 2007 at 07:52 #46496
    Promod
    Guest

    HI TOMAR,

    THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION.

    WHAT SHOULD BE THE THROSHOLD VALUE FOR THE UPLINK HANDOVER? PLS SUGGEST US………..

    8th February 2007 at 08:46 #46497
    Timmy
    Guest

    hi guys
    can you please provide the formula for calculating cssr ericcson
    regards

    8th February 2007 at 10:30 #46498
    Tomar
    Guest

    Hi Promod,
    handover threshold with cause UPLINK is one parameter, but it depends also on Handover averaging parameters for level handover (parameter defines the size of the gliding averaging window and the
    DTX weighting factor for the uplink and downlink RXLEV
    measurements for level handovers).
    If you set this parameter to low. There will be a lot drops and HO due to QUALITY. But in reality it could be between 8 and 3 (Handover Threshold (dBm) = -110dBm + HOLTHLVUL)
    BR
    Tomar

    9th February 2007 at 11:12 #46499
    Promod
    Guest

    Dear Tomar,

    Every thing is fine as i observed,so can u pls suggest which parameter to be changes for the below mentioned parameters….

    Regards,
    Promod

    HANDOVER CONTROL PARAMETERS OF

    ENABLE INTRA HO INTERF UL …… Y ENABLE INTRA HO INTERF DL …… Y
    ENABLE PWRBUDGET HANDOVER …… Y ENABLE MS DISTANCE PROCESS ….. N
    ENABLE SDCCH HANDOVER ………. N ENABLE UMBRELLA HANDOVER ……. N
    ENABLE FAST AVE CALL SETUP ….. N ENABLE FAST AVE PC …………. N
    ENABLE FAST AVE HO …………. N

    MIN INT BETWEEN HO REQ …………. 05 s HO PERIOD UMBRELLA ……. 06
    MIN INT BETWEEN UNSUCC HO ATTEMPT .. 03 s HO PERIOD PBGT ……….. 06

    GSM PLMN PRIORISATION ………….. 0

    AMH TRAFFIC CONTROL MCN …….. N AMH TRAFFIC CONTROL IUO …….. N
    AMH TRHO PBGT MARGIN ……….. N

    AVERAGING WINDOW SIZE ADJ CELL ….. 06 NUMBER OF ZERO RESULTS … 2
    ALL ADJACENT CELLS AVERAGED …….. N

    HO AVERAGING LEV DL WINDOW SIZE ………… 06 WEIGHTING …. 2
    HO AVERAGING LEV UL WINDOW SIZE ………… 06 WEIGHTING …. 2
    HO AVERAGING QUAL DL WINDOW SIZE ………… 01 WEIGHTING …. 2
    HO AVERAGING QUAL UL WINDOW SIZE ………… 01 WEIGHTING …. 2

    MS SPEED AVERAGING …………. 04

    HO THRESHOLDS QUAL DL RX QUAL …… 3.2% – 6.4% PX .. 04 NX .. 04
    HO THRESHOLDS QUAL UL RX QUAL …… 3.2% – 6.4% PX .. 04 NX .. 04

    HO THRESHOLDS LEV DL RX LEVEL ………… -095 dBm PX .. 01 NX .. 01
    HO THRESHOLDS LEV UL RX LEVEL ………… -095 dBm PX .. 01 NX .. 01
    HO THRESHOLDS LEV UL FOR RAPID FIELD DROP . -110 dBm PX .. 00 (DISABLED)
    ENABLE ENHANCED RAPID FIELD DROP ……….. DIS (DISABLED)
    THRESHOLD DEEP DROPPING EDGE …………… 10 dB PX .. 02 NX .. 03
    DEEP DROPPING EDGE MONITORING WINDOW ……. 2
    MODIFIED AVERAGING WINDOW ……………… 2
    MODIFIED NUMBER OF ZERO RESULTS ………… 1
    ENHANCED RAPID FIELD DROP DURATION ……… 10 s
    NON BCCH LAYER ACCESS THRESHOLD ………… -090 dBm
    NON BCCH LAYER EXIT THRESHOLD ………….. -095 dBm PX .. 01 NX .. 01

    HO THRESHOLDS INTERFERENCE DL RX LEVEL ….. -085 dBm PX .. 01 NX .. 01
    HO THRESHOLDS INTERFERENCE UL RX LEVEL ….. -085 dBm PX .. 01 NX .. 01

    MS DISTANCE AVERAGING PARAM WINDOW SIZE ….. 10
    MS DISTANCE HO THRESHOLD PARAM MS RANGE MAX …. 63 PX .. 01 NX .. 01
    MS DISTANCE HO THRESHOLD EXT. CELL MAX ……… 63
    MS DISTANCE HO THRESHOLD EXT. CELL MIN ……… 02

    USED C/I ESTIMATION METHOD …… NONE (ESTIMATION METHODS NOT IN USE)

    LOWER C/I LIMIT 1 … 30 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 1 … 3
    LOWER C/I LIMIT 2 … 25 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 2 … 1
    LOWER C/I LIMIT 3 … 20 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 3 … 0
    LOWER C/I LIMIT 4 … 17 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 4 … – 1
    LOWER C/I LIMIT 5 … 13 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 5 … – 2
    LOWER C/I LIMIT 6 … 9 dB PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 6 … – 5
    PRIORITY ADJ. STEP FOR BAND 7 … – 8

    SUPER REUSE ESTIMATION METHOD …………. NONE (METH. NOT USED IN THIS CELL)
    ENABLE INTER FRT HANDOVER …………….. DIS (DISABLED)
    INTERFERING CELL AVERAGING WINDOW SIZE …. 10
    INTERFERING CELL NUMBER OF ZERO RESULTS … 2
    ALL INTERFERING CELLS AVERAGED ………… N
    SUPER REUSE GOOD C/I THRESHOLD ………… 17 dB PX .. 08 NX .. 10
    SUPER REUSE BAD C/I THRESHOLD ………… 10 dB PX .. 02 NX .. 06
    MINIMUM BSIC DECODE TIME ……………… 10
    ENABLE TCH ASS SUPER IUO ……………… 0
    MINIMUM INTERVAL BETWEEN UNSUCC IUO HO …. 20 s
    MINIMUM INTERVAL BETWEEN IUO HO REQ BQ …. 10 s
    SUPER REUSE GOOD THRESHOLD RX LEVEL ……. -080 dBm PX .. 08 NX .. 10
    SUPER REUSE BAD THRESHOLD RX LEVEL …….. -085 dBm PX .. 02 NX .. 06

    LOWER SPEED LIMIT ……………………. 0 ( 0 km/h )
    UPPER SPEED LIMIT ……………………. 0 ( 0 km/h )
    MS SPEED THRESHOLD PX ……… 3 MS SPEED THRESHOLD NX ……… 6
    MS SPEED DETECTION STATE ……………… 0

    THRESHOLD DL RX QUAL AMR FR …………… 6.4% – 12.8%
    THRESHOLD UL RX QUAL AMR FR …………… 6.4% – 12.8%
    INTRA HO THRESHOLD RX QUAL AMR FR ……… 0.4% – 0.8%
    THRESHOLD DL RX QUAL AMR HR …………… 6.4% – 12.8%
    THRESHOLD UL RX QUAL AMR HR …………… 6.4% – 12.8%
    INTRA HO THRESHOLD RX QUAL AMR HR ……… 1.6% – 3.2%

    9th February 2007 at 12:24 #46500
    Tomar
    Guest

    Hi Promod,
    my sugestion is to change HO THRESHOLDS LEV UL RX LEVEL. Make a trial with -100 dBm and -105 dBm.
    Because UL is limiting factor for MS-BS comunication. If you have same HO settings for UL and DL, there will be 95% of imperative HO with cause UL. If you change this parameter to lower value, there will be slightly increase of DL cause (and may be slightly increse number of HO due to Quality – UL and DL). We are using parameters mutch more closer to the threshold -110.

    BR Tomar

    12th February 2007 at 11:31 #46501
    Promod
    Guest

    Thanks TOMAR,

    As per the HO criteria, we have handover priority are as follows:

    • Received signal quality
    • Received signal strength
    • Distance of MS from BTS
    • Drops below power budget margin
    • Interference.

    The below mentioned parameters will depend upon the HANDOVERs Cause.So there should not have the chance handovers on uplink level due to quality will is on first priority.

    So can have the correct justification why i should make uplink level to be low.

    Regards,
    Promod

    12th February 2007 at 17:55 #46502
    Valerijs
    Guest

    I suppose (if you are talking about inter BSC ho) this is the Nokian SW (db) failure. You can try to delete and then add all the neighbours, or just change for ex. pbgt parameters to new and then to old value for all neigbours. I soppose it will help to solve your problem.

    13th February 2007 at 08:12 #46503
    Promod
    Guest

    Thankyou Valerijs andTOMAR,

    As per the HO criteria, we have handover priority are as follows:

    • Received signal quality
    • Received signal strength
    • Distance of MS from BTS
    • Drops below power budget margin
    • Interference.

    The above mentioned parameters will depend upon the HANDOVERs Cause.So there should not have the chance handovers on uplink level due to quality is on first priority.

    So can have the correct justification why i should make uplink level to be low.

    Regards,
    Promod

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • The forum ‘Telecom Design’ is closed to new topics and replies.