Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Accepted Manuscript

Resource Allocation and Sharing for Heterogeneous Data Collection

over Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies

Vyacheslav Begishev, Vitaly Petrov, Andrey Samuylov,

Dmitri Moltchanov, Sergey Andreev, Yevgeni Koucheryavy,
Konstantin Samouylov

PII: S0140-3664(17)30680-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.01.009
Reference: COMCOM 5634

To appear in: Computer Communications

Received date: 15 June 2017

Revised date: 1 December 2017
Accepted date: 18 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Vyacheslav Begishev, Vitaly Petrov, Andrey Samuylov, Dmitri Moltchanov,
Sergey Andreev, Yevgeni Koucheryavy, Konstantin Samouylov, Resource Allocation and Sharing for
Heterogeneous Data Collection over Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies,
Computer Communications (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.01.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Resource Allocation and Sharing for Heterogeneous Data Collection over

Conventional 3GPP LTE and Emerging NB-IoT Technologies

Vyacheslav Begisheva , Vitaly Petrovb,∗, Andrey Samuylovb , Dmitri Moltchanovb , Sergey Andreevb , Yevgeni
Koucheryavyb , Konstantin Samouylova
a Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
b Tampere University of Technology (TUT), Tampere, Finland


Tremendous growth in the volumes and diversity of data to be collected in future Internet of Things (IoT) applications
is one of the key challenges for the networking infrastructures as they evolve from 4G+ to true 5G systems. Particu-

larly, ubiquitous deployments of wireless video surveillance cameras force the IoT service providers to support massive
multimedia data transfer together with more ‘conventional’ machine-type communications. Hence, the data services in a
complex IoT network may become heterogeneous, since several categories of traffic need to be supported simultaneously,
each having its own loads, quality-of-service requirements, and radio technology preferences. An emerging example of

the latter is the in-band deployment mode of the recently standardized NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT) technology, where
the same spectrum is shared between 3GPP LTE-connected high-end equipment and NB-IoT-connected low-end devices.
However, while all of the necessary technology enablers are already in place, the question of how to share the available
bandwidth efficiently has not been addressed comprehensively. Targeting the indicated challenge, this paper introduces
feasible strategies for resource sharing between the multimedia and sensory data in a hybrid LTE/NB-IoT wireless
deployment as well as compares them within our rigorous analytical methodology. The conducted numerical study
advocates for one of the allocation strategies – dynamic resource sharing with reservation – as the preferred solution for
reliable collection of heterogeneous data in large-scale 5G-grade IoT deployments.

1. Introduction In-line with the developments in the big data process-

ing techniques, technologies to collect them from numerous
Collection, storage, and processing of data has always

distributed sources have also enhanced significantly. Start-

remained central in information systems. Since the early
ing from miniature niche systems for wired sensor net-
years of computer science, the volume of exchanged infor-
works, featured by non-standard software and even hard-
mation has been increasing steadily and exceeded 1 PB/year
ware [5], they have evolved into large-scale and standard-
in 1996, 1 EB/year in 2000, and 1 ZB/year in 2016, thus

ized wireless solutions that suit many sensor types and

opening the ‘Zettabyte Era’ [1]. Following this trend, vari-
categories of data to be collected [6–10]. The most suc-
ous solutions for automated data processing have improved
cessful examples of such systems rely on machine-type
significantly: trivial calculating machines from the past
or machine-to-machine communications [11] and include

evolved into intelligent decision-making systems, already

capable of outperforming humans in many areas, including
and the recently completed NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT) [12].
finance [2], healthcare [3], and entertainment [4]. Capabil-
The latter three of the above are characterized by tens of
ities to process large volumes of unstructured, diverse, and
kilometers of coverage range, high energy-efficiency, and

rapidly varying data, termed big data, rapidly transform

low-cost radio design, thus making them technology can-
our everyday life and make intelligent decision-making sys-
didates for big data collection in the future Internet of
tems an essential component of the contemporary ICT
Things (IoT) landscape [13–16].
Together with higher penetration of low-cost and low-
∗ Corresponding traffic smart meters and actuators, the forthcoming IoT
∗∗ The publication was supported by the Ministry of Education and systems will also observe the growing impact of multimedia
Science of the Russian Federation (project No. 2.882.2017/4.6). big data [17], especially those collected by massive video
Email addresses: (Vyacheslav surveillance systems deployed for security and safety pur-
Begishev), (Vitaly Petrov),
poses [18, 19]. Located in both publicly-accessible and (Andrey Samuylov), (Dmitri Moltchanov), restricted areas, the surveillance cameras may deliver to (Sergey Andreev), the big data analytics servers the types of information (Yevgeni Koucheryavy), that trivial sensors are not capable of producing. Same (Konstantin Samouylov)

Preprint submitted to Elsevier February 13, 2018


as smart meters, surveillance cameras may be deployed our study, we advocate for the third strategy as the most
across a larger area (e.g., a factory, plant, or city block) appropriate in the heterogeneous traffic scenarios as well
and placed in locations where wired connectivity is not fea- as demonstrate how to best parametrize it for particular
sible due to technical or economic reasons, such as lamp- IoT traffic patterns.
posts, walls, and roofs of buildings. Meanwhile, the exist- The main contributions of our work are therefore the
ing 4G and 4G+ machine-type communications solutions following:
cannot fully support the scalability and reliability require-
ments of such massive video surveillance due to insufficient • We demonstrate that static resource sharing between
capacity for video streaming purposes. Hence, the use of LTE and NB-IoT is highly sensitive to the offered
long-range high-rate (naturally, cellular) wireless technolo- traffic load. To achieve the optimal performance,
gies becomes the primary viable option. the allocations need to be dynamically updated ac-
The combination of two or more heterogeneous big data cording to immediate traffic fluctuations. The latter

streams is one of the key features in 5G mobile networks, requires precise knowledge of the arrival patterns,
which increases the intelligence and reliability of decision- which may not be available in practice;

making and, consequently, unleashes the full potential of • We confirm that dynamic resource sharing between
the IoT [20, 21]. For instance, intrusion or fire detection LTE and NB-IoT drastically improves the overall
signals reported by a group of smart meters may be im-

system performance. However, it does not auto-
mediately cross-verified against the video monitoring infor- matically provide any performance guarantees to the
mation. At the same time, the collection of such hetero- over-the-top services and may unpredictably degrade
geneous big data poses a number of specific resource man- performance, especially when the offered traffic load
agement related challenges, where the reliability of data
streams plays a key role [22]. This need has been recently
recognized by 3GPP with the ratification of a dedicated in-
band deployment mode in LTE Rel. 13 [23–25], where the
“conventional” LTE radio – that can be used for large-
US across sub-systems is non-uniform;
• We illustrate that the introduction of minimal re-
source guarantees on top of dynamic resource sharing
between LTE and NB-IoT alleviates the problem of
scale video surveillance [26] – shares the radio spectrum system performance degradation, while keeping the
with the emerging NB-IoT technology for low-end sensor network-centric metrics at adequate levels.
traffic [27]. Today, this combination receives significant
support from industry and is predicted to become one of The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec-
tion 2, a model of the envisioned IoT system that serves

the de-facto solutions for heterogeneous big data collection

in various IoT applications [28–31]. both NB-IoT and LTE traffic is outlined. The proposed
However, even by offering the needed flexibility in how performance analysis is conducted in Section 3. Numerical
radio resources may be shared between LTE and NB-IoT assessment is further summarized in Section 4. Conclu-

technologies, 3GPP does not provide specific guidelines on sions are drawn in the last section.
how these resources should be shared. Meanwhile, assum-
ing the limited amounts of radio resources owned by the 2. Proposed System Model
IoT service provider, the choice of the best resource allo-

cation strategy for both (i) a smaller number of high-rate In this section, we first introduce our model of a surveil-
video cameras and (ii) a larger number of low-rate smart lance operator that establishes heterogeneous monitoring
meters will have significant implications on the decision- services in LTE bands by using both LTE and NB-IoT ca-

making accuracy as well as the overall system performance. pabilities. Then, we proceed with formalizing the deploy-
Along these lines, one has to carefully balance the analytics- ment and traffic processes, the resource allocation strate-
centric metrics, such as the session loss probability for in- gies, as well as the metrics of interest. The notation used
dividual data streams, with the network-centric metrics, in this paper is summarized in Table 1.

such as the radio resource utilization efficiency. This task

is extremely convoluted, since these objectives are inher- 2.1. Considered Surveillance Service
ently conflicting, while the instantaneous values of data In this work, we consider an operator planning its area
volumes are hard to predict. surveillance system. The system to be deployed is a hybrid
In this paper, we target to resolve the above chal- solution consisting of (i) multiple video cameras to perform
lenges by contributing an analytical framework for per- video monitoring, (ii) a large number of sensor nodes for
formance modeling of heterogeneous data collection over intrusion and fire detection as well as for temperature and
a 5G mobile network. Using the developed modeling tool, pressure monitoring, and (iii) big data processing units ca-
we characterize and compare three feasible strategies for pable of detecting certain events by intelligently combining
resource allocation and sharing between LTE and NB-IoT the streams from both the video cameras and the smart
sub-systems, namely, static, dynamic, and dynamic with meters, see Fig. 1.
reservations. We also illustrate the related scaling laws of Since wired or Wi-Fi connectivity is not always avail-
their operation in typical usage scenarios. As a result of able for the outdoor cameras (e.g., those monitoring large

Dedicated network
spectrum resource Radio resources
with network slicing Data analytics servers

Multimedia streaming LTE

Sensory data NB-IoT

Dynamic separation
Heterogeneous subject to resource
data sources allocation strategy LTE/NB-IoT Operator’s cloud network
base station

Figure 1: Considered system design in a nutshell.

The deployment scenario described above presumes shar-

Table 1: Notation used in this paper.
ing of acquired spectrum resources between the two types
Parameter Description of end nodes, surveillance cameras and NB-IoT sensors,
C Number of basic channels thus raising the key question of efficient resource alloca-

S Number of RBs in a cell
c Number of basic channels in a single RB tion. Here, the reliability of both traffic streams becomes
λ Intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals of primary importance since the processing server may sur-
λ(1) Intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals per device vive without some of the sensed data, but cannot make in-
NN Number of connected NB-IoT devices
formed decisions if the entire stream becomes temporarily

θ Mean NB-IoT session volume
ν Intensity of LTE session arrivals unavailable (i.e., the amount of received data drops under
ν (1) Intensity of LTE session arrivals per device
NL Number of connected LTE devices
a certain limit). One of the possible examples here is a fire
1/µ Mean LTE session duration detection system, which is deployed across a certain area
ρ = λθ NB-IoT offered traffic load where any false positive alert is extremely costly (e.g., an
a = ν/µ LTE offered traffic load
RN Number of basic channels reserved for NB-IoT industrial factory). Hence, if the processing unit gener-
RL Number of basic channels reserved for LTE ates a fire alert from smoke/temperature sensor readings,
c(m) Number of channels currently occupied by NB-IoT
CL Maximal number of channels allocated for LTE it needs to first cross-check it with the video monitoring
CN Maximal number of channels allocated for NB-IoT channel (video stream from a camera nearby), and only

b Number of channels required by one NB-IoT session

d Number of channels required by one LTE session
when confirmed announce the emergency evacuation.
M Maximum number of NB-IoT sessions in RB To address the above issues, we first introduce our sys-
m(t) Number of active NB-IoT sessions at time t tem model and then proceed with formalizing the candi-
n(t) Number of active LTE sessions at time t
date resource allocation and sharing strategies.

X State space of {m(t),n(t),t > 0} process

p(m, n) Probability of having m NB-IoT and n LTE sessions
G(X ) Normalization constant
pN NB-IoT session loss probability
2.2. Deployment and Traffic Processes
pL LTE session loss probability We consider an LTE cell of circular coverage area with
BN , BL Loss sets of NB-IoT/LTE sessions
a base station located in its center. Recall that the cover-

γ A fraction of radio resources allocated for NB-IoT

E[TN ] Mean NB-IoT session duration age radius of the cell for LTE service is much smaller as
E[NN ], E[NL ] Mean number of NB-IoT/LTE sessions compared to the coverage range of NB-IoT service. The
E[bN ], E[bL ] Mean number of occupied channels by NB-IoT/LTE
E[sN ], E[sL ] Mean number of occupied RBs by NB-IoT/LTE entire set of available radio resources is measured in terms

E[bN L ] Mean number of occupied channels by NB-IoT+LTE of its smallest granularity, termed an NB-IoT channel. In
what follows, we name it the basic channel. There are C
NB-IoT channels available in the uplink direction that can
be characterized as C = cS, where S is the number of re-
parking spots), LTE is assumed as a connectivity option

source blocks (RBs) and c is the number of basic channels

for surveillance cameras. Connected sensors and smart
in a single RB [33].
meters are assumed to communicate via NB-IoT as one
There are in total NL connected LTE devices and NN
of the most prominent technologies for long-range IoT ap-
connected NB-IoT devices in the modeled scenario. The
plications that receives global standardization support. In
session arrival process at an LTE device is Poisson in na-
addition, the envisioned combination of radio solutions can
ture with the intensity of ν (1) . Hence, the aggregate LTE
effectively coexist within the same network. Since both
session arrival process is also Poisson having the inten-
technologies operate in the licensed bands, a reliability-
sity of ν = ν (1) NL . Duration of a session is assumed to
oriented service provider may acquire a certain frequency
be distributed exponentially with the mean of 1/µ, while
resource from the network operator via e.g., network slic-
the number of requested basic channels is exactly d. Let
ing mechanisms [32] in order to guarantee uninterrupted
a = ν/µ denote the offered traffic load over LTE. Simi-
and predictable service operation regardless of the actual
larly, NB-IoT sessions arrive according to the Poisson pro-
loading on other operator’s spectrum bands.
cess having the intensity of λ = λ(1) NN , where λ(1) is

- NB-IoT - LTE - shared


CN > RN > 0
RL = 0, CL = C

RN = 0, CN = C

CL > RL > 0

a) static b) fully dynamic c) dynamic with reservation

Figure 3: Process of sequential resource allocation in LTE cell.

Figure 2: Considered resource allocations strategies.

the intensity of NB-IoT session arrivals per an individual A unique property of the considered model is that the

connected device. Each arrival is characterized by an ex- basic channels are assumed to be scheduled sequentially by
ponentially distributed data volume with the mean of 1/θ taking into account the features of in-band NB-IoT tech-
and requires exactly b basic channels. We also let ρ = λθ nology [34, 35]. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3. Ac-
denote the offered traffic load over NB-IoT. Similarly to cordingly, consider a system with no active sessions and
the LTE sessions, NB-IoT devices are assumed to remain
static throughout the entire duration of their session.

2.3. Resource Allocation Strategies

USassume that a new NB-IoT session arrives. In this case,
a new RB is made available to NB-IoT, where the arrival
occupies exactly b NB-IoT basic channels for the exponen-
tially distributed service time. From now on, new NB-IoT
session arrivals occupy the reminding channels in this RB.
The considered resource allocation and sharing strate-
Further, upon a new NB-IoT session arrival, if all of the
gies between LTE cameras and NB-IoT metering sensors
channels in an RB already scheduled for NB-IoT are oc-
are illustrated in Fig. 2. Here, the maximum number of
cupied, there is another free RB accessible for the NB-IoT
basic channels that can be allocated for NB-IoT and LTE

service, this new RB is scheduled for the NB-IoT service.

are CN = C − RL and CL = C − RN , respectively. RL
and RN are the minimum number of channels that are al-
2.4. Metrics of Interest
ways available and guaranteed for LTE and NB-IoT traffic,
In this paper, we assume that the surveillance system

correspondingly. We compare the following three resource

allocation strategies: operator targets to balance the service reliability and the
system performance metrics in the uplink direction. In
• Static (STAT). This case corresponds to the situa- terms of the service parameters, we consider the session
tion where the minimum and maximum numbers of drop probability – the probability that a new session is

basic channels allocated to NB-IoT and LTE coin- dropped due to the insufficient amount of available radio
cide, such that RL = CL and RN = CN . In other resources – for both NB-IoT and LTE sessions. As an
words, all of the resources are strictly divided be- example of the system performance indicator pertaining to

tween NB-IoT and LTE and no resources are shared the economic factors of running the service, we concentrate
between them. on the radio resource utilization – the ergodic fraction of
radio resources jointly occupied by both types of service
• Dynamic (DYN). In this case, no minimum amount in frequency–time domain.
of resources are allocated to both NB-IoT and LTE,

i.e., RL = RN = 0. However, the maximum amount

of resources CL = CR = C and the entire set is fully 3. Performance Evaluation Model
shared between NB-IoT and LTE traffic. In this section, we formalize and solve the model of
• Dynamic with reservations (DYNRES). In this case, the introduced service. We first represent the number of
the maximum allocations allowed for NB-IoT and NB-IoT and LTE sessions in the system by using a two-
LTE are determined, such that CN = C − RL > 0 dimensional Markov process. We further demonstrate that
and CL = C − RN for some RN > 0, RL > 0, rep- our model allows for an analytical solution in case of the
resenting the minimum amounts of resources exclu- equilibrium state probabilities. Finally, we proceed with
sively assigned to NB-IoT and LTE traffic, respec- deriving the metrics of interest. We would also like to
tively. The rest of the resources are shared between note that the evaluation methodology developed below is
the two types of traffic. sufficiently flexible to be adjusted to any cellular IoT tech-
nology, should it have radio resource management similar

to that employed by LTE. As an example, the LTE plus process, {m(t), n(t), t > 0}, over the following state-space
NB-IoT deployment studied in this paper may be replaced
with the LTE plus LTE-M [36] or LTE-M plus NB-IoT X = {m ≥ 0, n ≥ 0 :
setup by adjusting the corresponding numerical parame- nd ≤ C − RN , c(m) ≤ C − RL , nd + c(m) ≤ C}, (1)
where c(m) = cdbm/M e is the number of basic channels
occupied by the NB-IoT sessions, M is the maximum num-
3.1. Analytical Model of Service
ber of NB-IoT sessions that can be served in a single RB,
M = dc/be, and bm is the number of basic channels re-
quired to serve these sessions.
It is easy to see that {m(t), n(t), t > 0} is Markov in
nature. The generic state of the state transition diagram
with the associated transition rates is illustrated in Fig. 4.

Let p(m, n)(t), {m, n} ∈ X , be the probability of having m

NB-IoT and n LTE sessions in the system at an arbitrary
time t. Due to the lossy nature of the system, there is
always stationary state distribution

p(m, n) = lim p(m, n)(t), {m, n} ∈ X . (2)

3.2. Equilibrium State Probabilities

Figure 4: Generic state and related transitions of {m(t), n(t), t > 0}.
To derive the local balance equations, consider an ar-
bitrary contour in the state transition diagram demon-
strated in Fig. 5. First, as one may observe, the pro-
cess {m(t), n(t), t > 0} is reversible, which implies that
the stationary state distribution satisfies the local balance
The system described in Section 2 can be modeled by equations
using a mixed service queuing system with two arrival pro- m
cesses having different block-based service disciplines, re- p(m, n) = p(m − 1, n)λ, m > 0, (m, n) ∈ X ,
spectively [37]. Observe that the system permits for losses

p(m, n)µn = p(m, n − 1)ν, n > 0, (m, n) ∈ X . (3)

of both NB-IoT and LTE sessions. Note that similar queu-
ing models have been heavily studied in the past in the con- Using the recurrence form in (3), we obtain for m > 0
text of servicing systems with multiple inputs each charac-

terized by different service requirements, see e.g., [38–41]. λθ

p(m, n) = p(m − 1, n) =
The key difference in the model formulated and solved m
below is in the complex sequential block-based resource = p(m − 1, n) =
allocation strategy. m

Let us fist determine the system state. Observe that an = p(m − 2, n) =

LTE session is accepted if at least d out of CL = C − RN m(m − 1)
channels are available at the moment of its arrival. This ρ3
decreases the number of available basic channels by d and = p(m − 3, n) , (4)
m(m − 1)(m − 2)

the number of RBs by dd/ce. Note that for LTE sessions

dd/ce is always an integer, such that dd/ce ≥ 1. Oth- which leads to
erwise, the LTE session is dropped. In case of NB-IoT
arrivals, if upon an arrival of a session there is already an ρm

RB scheduled for NB-IoT and the number of basic chan- p(m, n) = p(0, n) =
m(m − 1)(m − 2) . . . 1
nels in this RB is higher than b, then the NB-IoT session ρm
is accepted to this RB. If the number of available basic = p(0, n), (5)
channels is lower than b and a new RB is available for the
NB-IoT traffic, then this RB is scheduled for NB-IoT and where m > 0, (m, n) ∈ X .
the session is accepted, thus decreasing the number of ba- Using (3), we can also establish p(0, n) as
sic channels in this RB by b. In other cases, the NB-IoT a
session is dropped. p(0, n) = p(0, n − 1) =
Let m(t), t > 0, and n(t), t > 0, define the numbers of a2
active NB-IoT and LTE sessions, respectively. Hence, the = p(0, n − 2) = ... =
n(n − 1)
system state of the LTE cell serving both NB-IoT and LTE
traffic can be described by a two-dimensional stochastic = p(0, 0), n > 0, (m, n) ∈ X . (6)

BL = m, :0≤m≤
d b
RL C − RN C − (n + 1)d C − nd
(m, n) : ≤n≤ − 1, +1≤m≤ . (17)
d d b b

Substituting (5) and (6) into (3), we produce Define the following division of the state space X

ρm an S
p (m, n) = G−1 (X ) , (7) X = Xs , (15)
m! n!

where the normalization constant G(X ) is given by
where Xs = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m) = sc}.

X ρm an The proposed division of the state space is shown in
G(X ) = . (8)
m! n! Fig. 6. Here, we also illustrate the subspaces correspond-
ing to the blocking states of LTE and NB-IoT sessions.

Knowing the stationary state distribution of the system
provided in (7) and (8) and operating over (15), the sought
blocking probabilities specified in (12) follow readily. Par-
ticularly, using (15) the blocking subspaces for the LTE

US sessions can be written as

BL = {(m, n) ∈ X : (n + 1)d > C − c(m)} ∪

∪ {(m, n) ∈ X : (n + 1)d > C − RN } =
= {X : (n + 1)d > C − max(c(m), RN ), c(m) = sc} =
Figure 5: Existence of local balance equations. s=0

C − max(sc, RN ) mb
= X :n+1> , =s =
3.3. Performance Metrics s=0
d c
The drop probability for LTE and NB-IoT may be writ- C − RN RN
= X :n= ,0≤m≤

ten as d b
X X [S    
pN = p(m, n); pL = p(m, n), (12) C − max(sc, RN ) mb
X :n= , s−1< <s ,
(m,n)∈BN (m,n)∈BL s=0
d c

where the associated sets are
and, finally, the sought subspace takes the form of (17),
BL = {(m, n) ∈ X : d(n + 1) > C − max(c(m), RN )} , thus leading to the following LTE session blocking proba-

BN = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − max(nd, RL )} . bility

j k
The mean session duration of an NB-IoT sessions is b  

P C − RN
pL = p m, +
(m,n)∈X mp(m, n) d
E[TN ] = . (14) m=0
λ (1 − pN ) C−RN
d X−1 b C−nd
Xb c
The calculation of session drop probabilities in (12) + p(m, n). (18)
by directly applying (13) is computationally expensive. R
n= dL m=b
b c+1
The reason is that the state space of the system is rather
large and may reach the value of few tens of thousands.
To alleviate this limitation, we develop a dedicated nu-
merical algorithm based on a recurrent relation between
non-normalized probabilities of macro states that is briefly
sketched below.


C − RL c RL C − mb RN C − RL c
BN = ,n : 0 ≤ n ≤ (m, n) : n = , ≤m≤ . (20)
c b d d b c b

n The mean numbers of NB-IoT and LTE sessions are

C − max( sc, RN )
d bCN /bc b[CL −c(m)]/dc
E[NN ] = mp(m, n) = mp(n, m),
BL (m,n)∈X m=0 n=0

bCN /bc b[CL −c(m)]/dc

E[NL ] = np(m, n) = np(m, n). (23)

(m,n)∈X m=0 n=0


Observe that the number of RBs and basic channels oc-

cupied by LTE can now be calculated directly. However,
1 due to the elastic nature of NB-IoT sessions the mean num-

... ... ber of NB-IoT sessions and the mean number of channels
0 m
allocated to the NB-IoT sessions need to be established
s =1 s s=S
separately. Particularly, the mean number of RBs allo-
cated to the NB-IoT sessions is
Figure 6: Proposed division of X by macro states.

Similarly, the subset for NB-IoT session blocking is

US E [sN ] =

X b
C−max (d M
e N)
m c, R

p(m, n). (24)
BN = {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − nd } ∪ m=0 n=0

∪ {(m, n) ∈ X : c(m + 1) > C − RL } = The mean number of basic channels occupied by a sin-
[ gle NB-IoT session is provided by
= {X : c(m + 1) > C − max(nd, RL ), c(m) = sc} =

$ %
s=0 j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R

     d C−RL

RL C − RL c [ X X lmm b

= X :0≤n≤ ,m = E[bN ] = M p(m, n). (25)

d c b M

m=0 n=0
C − mb max(RN , C − sc) c
X :n= ,m = , The mean number of RBs allocated to the LTE sessions
d c b
(19) $ %

k C−max(d M ec, RN )
thus eventually yielding (20) and resulting in the following Xb

expressions for the NB-IoT session blocking probability E [sL ] = n p(m, n). (26)

j k m=0 n=0

X d   
C − RL c The mean number of channels occupied by the LTE
pN = p ,n +
c b sessions is
j k $ %

b   j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R
X C − mb C−RL d
+ p m, . (21) X X
k d E[bL ] = d n p(m, n). (27)
m= bN
m=0 n=0

The mean session duration in (14) takes the form of The mean of the total number of the basic channels
$ % occupied by both types of traffic is finally delivered as
j k C−max (d M e N)
m c, R
E [bN L ] = E [bN ] + E [bL ].
RL d
P m
M p(m, n)
E[TN ] = n=0 n=0
. (22) 4. Numerical Assessment
λ (1 − pN )
In this section, we apply our developed analytical model
to produce the quantitative and qualitative performance


0.45 4.1. Service Reliability

STAT, γ =0.6
0.40 DYNRES, RL =0.6C We begin with Fig. 7 that presents the camera ses-
Probability of LTE session drop

0.35 STAT, γ =0.8 sion drop probability over LTE as a function of the to-
DYNRES, RL =0.8C tal number of connected NB-IoT sensors in static resource
0.30 DYN
allocation scheme, STAT, where the entire pool of radio
resources is strictly divided between the two services. For
0.20 this strategy, we introduce a resource division coefficient,
0.15 γ, which characterizes the fraction of resources reserved
0.10 for the NB-IoT service, γ = RN /C. As one may observe,
0.05 the characteristics of STAT strategy depend only on the
0.00 selected γ value, but not on the load from the NB-IoT sen-
0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K sor nodes due to the hard separation between the resources
Number of NB-IoT devices

allocated to LTE and NB-IoT services. The reason is that
STAT strategy constructs two independent virtual wireless

Figure 7: LTE drop probability vs. NB-IoT load.
systems: one for the LTE and another one for the NB-IoT
0.35 traffic. While this strategy is the simplest in terms of its
STAT, γ =0.4 implementation, it can be recommended only for systems

Probability of NB-IoT session drop

0.30 DYNRES, RN =0.6C

STAT, γ =0.2
where the average load from all the concurrent services
0.25 DYNRES, RN =0.8C (i) seldom changes in time, (ii) is known in advance, or
DYN (iii) can be well predicted. Such traffic behavior is rarely
0.20 observed in practice.

US In contrast, the drop probability in DYN strategy, where
the entire pool of resources is available to both services,
heavily depends on the current load from the NB-IoT seg-
ment. For lower numbers of connected NB-IoT devices,
DYN strategy clearly outperforms STAT solution in that
0.00 it makes the full band available to the LTE devices in the
0 100 200 300 400
Number of LTE devices absence of the NB-IoT traffic. The growth of the NB-
IoT traffic is naturally followed by an increase in the drop

Figure 8: NB-IoT drop probability vs. LTE load. probability for DYN strategy as the NB-IoT traffic starts
competing for the resources with the constant load com-
ing from the LTE traffic. Finally, with the extremely large
results for the considered system in a characteristic sce- number of NB-IoT devices, sensor traffic begins dominat-

nario. We compare the properties of the discussed resource ing in the shared band. Eventually, the drop probability
allocation strategies by focusing on the underlying scaling becomes higher than that for STAT strategy, regardless of
laws and optimization. Particularly, we first address the the chosen resource division coefficient value. Therefore,
performance of service-related metrics that concentrate on DYN resource allocation strategy can be recommended

LTE and NB-IoT session drop probabilities. Then, we ana- for systems where the average loads demanded by each
lyze operator-centric resource utilization metrics. Finally, stream (measured in Hz/s) are comparable. At the same
we demonstrate the process of adjusting the selected strat- time, DYN strategy remains an adequate solution for un-
egy by taking into account the requirements of data ana-

stable systems where the load may fluctuate dramatically

lytics servers. The parameters of the system constructed or when one of the streams is dominating the other(s).
in what follows are summarized in Table 2. Finally, we study the third strategy, DYNRES, where
Table 2: System parameters in numerical analysis. particular sets of resources are exclusively allocated for the

two types of traffic, while the rest is dynamically shared

Par. Description Value
between them. The values of RL are chosen proportional
C Number of basic channels in one LTE cell 100
c Number of basic channels in one RB 4 to the corresponding γ values in the previously considered
RN Number of channels reserved for NB-IoT [0, ..., 100] STAT resource allocation strategy, RL = γC, whereas RN
RL Number of channels reserved for LTE [0, ..., 100] is assumed to be zero. In other words, we compare the
b Number of channels for NB-IoT session 1 static and semi-dynamic allocation options in similar con-
d Number of channels for LTE session 4 ditions. Here, we observe that for the low numbers of NB-
θ Mean NB-IoT session traffic 100 kbit IoT devices, the characteristics of DYNRES strategy are
1/µ Mean LTE session duration 10 s
identical to those observed for DYN alternative. However,
λ(1) Session arrival rate per NB-IoT device 10/min.
an increase in the drop probability for DYNRES is much
ν (1) Session arrival rate per LTE device 1/min.
slower than the corresponding trend for DYN. The reason
is that a part of resources that the LTE traffic could have
occupied is protected by the dynamic separation induced

100 100
Radio resource utilization, %

Radio resource utilization, %

90 90
STAT, γ =0.6 70 STAT, γ =0.4
=0 6
60 STAT, γ =0.8 65 STAT, γ =0.2
=0 8
50 55
0 20K 40K 60K 80K 100K 0 100 200 300 400
Number of NB-IoT devices Number of LTE devices

Figure 9: Resource utilization vs. NB-IoT load. Figure 10: Resource utilization vs. LTE load.

by RL . Further, for higher loads of NB-IoT traffic, the 4.2. System-Level Performance
LTE drop probability for DYNRES never climbs higher After discussing the reliability performance of the con-
than the respective value for the system with STAT strat- sidered strategies, we focus on the system-centric metrics
egy. For extremely high numbers of NB-IoT devices, the and, particularly, the resource utilization.
curve for DYNRES asymptotically approaches the curve
for STAT, but never crosses it.
Summarizing, the performance of DYNRES strategy
is never worse than that of STAT and DYN strategies.
US To this end, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 display the average re-
source utilization for the parameters employed to construct
Fig. 7 and Fig. 9, respectively. Using this parametrization,
we learn the scaling laws of the resource utilization value
The explanation is in that DYNRES strategy combines versus both LTE and NB-IoT loads. Studying Fig. 9 and
the strengths of the first two, thus behaving similarly to Fig. 10, we observe that the results are opposite to those
DYN strategy at low loads and similarly to STAT strat- reported by Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. Here, DYN strategy clearly
egy at high loads. Hence, DYNRES strategy can be rec- outperforms all its competitors due to a more aggressive re-
ommended to improve reliability-centric operation. Then, source allocation mechanism: any available RB is immedi-

the question of interest is appropriate parametrization of ately granted when requested by any type of traffic. Mean-
the selected strategy. while, STAT strategy demonstrates worse performance as
In more detail, we study an orthogonal cut in Fig. 8 the dominating traffic from one service can never be of-

that presents the NB-IoT session drop probability versus fered resources reserved for another service, even when the
the total number of connected LTE devices. Similarly to latter is currently underloaded. Finally, DYNRES strat-
the previous case, we parametrize DYNRES strategy in a egy demonstrates the median behavior by “cuddling” the
way that the number of resources reserved for NB-IoT in DYN curve at low loads and asymptotically approaching

STAT and DYNRES cases match perfectly. It is important the STAT curve at high loads.
to note that in this case, RN is equal to (1 − γ)C instead
of γC. The values of RL are assumed to be zero. For 4.3. Adjustment of Strategies
such a symmetric case, we observe identical qualitative

behavior with that in Fig. 7. However, there are noticeable Applying our intuition developed in the course of the
quantitative differences between Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The first two parts of the conducted numerical study, we now
values of NB-IoT drop probability are orders of magnitude consider a more practical scenario: setting dynamic thresh-
lower that those observed for LTE. This is mainly due to olds for the discussed traffic types depending on the re-

lower resource demands of an individual NB-IoT session, quirements as defined by the data analytics algorithms.
hence leading to higher chances of getting served even in These requirements are expressed in terms of the LTE and
a near fully loaded system. In addition, the way NB-IoT NB-IoT drop probabilities. For this study, we disregard
channels are allocated in the in-band mode also favors the DYN strategy as it does not provide the means to achieve
sensor traffic. Indeed, the LTE sessions occupy an integer performance guarantees. Hence, we offer a comparison be-
number of RBs, while the NB-IoT traffic acquires a full RB tween STAT and DYNRES strategies.
even though a single session does not occupy it completely. To parametrize the resource allocation strategies, we
Therefore, the next several NB-IoT sessions will definitely first determine the maximum tolerable level of drop prob-
be served, since the remaining part of the already allocated ability for the LTE and NB-IoT services. Here, we set this
RB cannot be occupied by any LTE stream. Regardless value to 1% for both types of traffic. We then apply our
of the quantitative values for the LTE traffic, DYNRES framework described in Section 3 to determine the mini-
system always wins the competition. mum and maximum values of γ, γmin , and γmax required
to “protect” the traffic streams from each other. We also

10-1 46.70
10-2 46.65

Radio resource utilization, %

Session drop probability

10-7 STAT, LTE session DYNRES, LTE session
10-8 46.40 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70
0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70
STAT strategy LTE resource share STAT strategy LTE resource share

Figure 11: Drop probability vs. resource division coefficient, γ. Figure 12: Resource utilization vs. resource division coefficient, γ.

negligible load from NB-IoT. However, the actual differ-

set the same resource division coefficients for DYNRES
strategy, such that RL = γmin C, while RN = (1 − γmax )C. ence is on the order of few percents and is accompanied
For the selected drop probability thresholds and the cho- by the considerably higher reliability levels, since the drop
sen stream loads, 50 LTE-connected video cameras and probabilities for DYNRES in such extreme conditions are
30K NB-IoT sensors, the resource division coefficient val- an order of magnitude lower than those achievable with
ues are γmin = 0.55 and γmax = 0.7. In other words, 55%
or resources have to be allocated exclusively to the LTE
segment, while 30% more resources are to be “protected”
US DYN, see Fig. 7 and Fig. 8.

5. Conclusions
for the NB-IoT sessions. The question of interest is how to
efficiently share the resources between the γ values, 15% In this paper, we studied efficient collection of hetero-
in our case. geneous data over an IoT wireless network. We partic-
Targeting to answer the above question, we compare ularly focused on the simultaneous transmission of high-
STAT strategy, where γ ∈ [γmin , γmax ] with DYNRES al- rate video streams coming from LTE-connected surveil-

ternative, where the available common resources are dy- lance cameras and low-rate sensory data collected from
namically shared between the streams depending on their numerous NB-IoT-connected devices (considering the in-
instantaneous loads. Fig. 11 presents an analytics-centric band LTE/NB-IoT deployment). We thus developed an

study of the drop probabilities for both LTE and NB-IoT analytical performance evaluation framework that captures
streams, while Fig. 12 focuses on the resource utilization both service- and network-centric metrics of interest as
analysis. Regarding Fig. 11, we notice that DYNRES is well as considers the peculiarities of resource sharing be-
preferred over STAT: there is a very “narrow” operational tween LTE and NB-IoT transmissions. Finally, by ex-

regime (γ ≤ 0.56), where NB-IoT drop probability for ample of a surveillance operator implementing a complex
STAT is lower than that for DYNRES (0.5·10−6 vs. 10−6 ). monitoring system for further data processing, we evalu-
At the same time, this slight advantage is compensated by ated three alternative resource sharing strategies between
a considerable loss in the LTE session drop probability: multimedia and sensory data.

10−2 for STAT vs. only 0.5 · 10−3 for DYNRES. Mean- Our numerical study demonstrated that the simplest
while, any higher values of γ lead to much worse perfor- STAT strategy with complete isolation between services
mance of STAT in terms of both probabilities. by strictly assigning resources to them is highly sensitive
Finally, we focus on the resource utilization curves in to the offered load and requires precise knowledge of the

the same conditions, as shown by Fig. 12. Here, we ob- traffic through dynamic updates to achieve the desired
serve that DYNRES clearly outperforms STAT for all of performance. We also revealed that DYN strategy with
the allowed values of γ. Despite this fact, the quantitative the fully dynamic allocation, on the one hand, achieves
difference is not massive and we can still conclude that the highest system throughput, but on the other hand,
DYNRES resource allocation strategy is the best option for cannot guarantee any demanded service reliability. Our
the considered heterogeneous data collection system under preferred dynamic allocation strategy with resource reser-
both stable and time-varying loads. With adequate selec- vation, DYNRES, allows for satisfying the feasible relia-
tion of RL and RN parameters, DYNRES always performs bility requirements defined by the needs of big data ana-
better than STAT. At the same time, there is a single load lytics, while keeping the resource utilization at high lev-
regime, where DYNRES is worse than DYN in terms of els. The proposed DYNRES strategy is therefore recom-
the resource utilization: a clear domination of one type of mended for the forthcoming IoT deployments over 5G mo-
traffic over another one, e.g., extreme load from LTE and bile networks.


The constructed analytical framework additionally of- derstanding the IoT connectivity landscape: A contemporary
fers a baseline model with moderate complexity, which is M2M radio technology roadmap, IEEE Communications Mag-
azine 53 (9) (2015) 32–40.
open to many possible extensions. Our formulations can [15] A. Rico-Alvarino, M. Vajapeyam, H. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Blanken-
be further developed to incorporate more sophisticated ship, J. Bergman, T. Tirronen, E. Yavuz, An overview of 3GPP
scenarios, which include but are not limited to the im- enhancements on machine to machine communications, IEEE
plementation of priorities between the LTE and NB-IoT Communications Magazine 54 (6) (2016) 14–21.
[16] Y. Miao, W. Li, D. Tian, M. S. Hossain, M. F. Alhamid, Nar-
connections, the addition of multiple thresholds for the row band Internet of Things: Simulation and modelling, IEEE
simultaneous operation of multiple clients with fixed guar- Internet of Things Journal PP (99).
antees, and the support of multi-tenancy where more than [17] W. Zhu, P. Cui, Z. Wang, G. Hua, Multimedia big data com-
one IoT operator exploits the shared spectrum. With ap- puting, IEEE MultiMedia 22 (3) (2015) 96–105.
[18] D. Lyon, Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, con-
propriate parametrization, the present framework can also sequences, critique, Big Data & Society 1 (2).
be applied to other cellular IoT radio access technologies, [19] F. Bjorklund, O. Svenonius, Video Surveillance and Social Con-

such as LTE-M. Finally, our model can be utilized to ad- trol in a Comparative Perspective, Routledge, 2013.
dress various optimization problems that focus on capac- [20] D. Che, M. Safran, Z. Peng, From big data to big data min-

ing: Challenges, issues, and opportunities, in: Proc. of the 18th
ity, session continuity, and average data rate maximization International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced
in multi-radio IoT deployments. Applications, 2013, pp. 1–15.
[21] E. Olshannikova, A. Ometov, Y. Koucheryavy, T. Olsson, Visu-

alizing Big Data with augmented and virtual reality: challenges
References and research agenda, Journal of Big Data 2 (1) (2015) 22.
[22] R. Zuech, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, R. Wald, Intrusion detection
[1] Cisco, The Zettabyte Era: Trends and analysis, White Paper. and Big Heterogeneous Data: a Survey, Journal of Big Data
[2] H. V. Jagadish, J. Gehrke, A. Labrinidis, Y. Papakonstantinou, 2 (1) (2015) 3.
J. M. Patel, R. Ramakrishnan, C. Shahabi, Big data and its
technical challenges, Communications of the ACM 57 (7) (2014)
[3] T. B. Murdoch, A. S. Detsky, The inevitable application of big
data to health care, JAMA 309 (13) (2013) 1351–1352.
US [23]

R. Ratasuk, B. Vejlgaard, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Ghosh, NB-IoT
system for M2M communication, in: Proc. of the IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference (IEEE WCNC),
2016, pp. 1–5.
Study on provision of low-cost Machine-Type Communications
[4] H. Chen, R. H. L. Chiang, V. C. Storey, Business intelligence (MTC) User Equipments (UEs) based on LTE, 3GPP Technical
and analytics: From big data to big impact, Management In- Report (TR) 36.888/r12 (June 2013).
formation Systems Quarterly 36 (4) (2012) 1165–1188. [25] Cellular system support for ultra-low complexity and low
URL throughput Internet of Things (CIoT), 3GPP Technical Report
[5] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, E. Cayirci, A (TR) 45.820/r13 (December 2015).
survey on sensor networks, IEEE Communications Magazine

[26] U. Ramachandran, K. Hong, L. Iftode, R. Jain, R. Ku-

40 (8) (2002) 102–114. mar, K. Rothermel, J. Shin, R. Sivakumar, Large-scale
[6] J. Hosek, P. Masek, S. Andreev, O. Galinina, A. Ometov, situation awareness with camera networks and multimodal
F. Kropfl, W. Wiedermann, Y. Koucheryavy, A SyMPHOnY sensing, Proceedings of the IEEE 100 (4) (2012) 878–892.
of integrated IoT businesses: Closing the gap between avail- doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2182093.

ability and adoption, IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (12) [27] 3GPP, “Standardization of NB-IOT completed”, http://www.
(2017) 156–164.,
[7] P. Jain, P. Hedman, H. Zisimopoulos, Machine Type Commu- June 2016.
nications in 3GPP systems, IEEE Communications Magazine [28] Nokia, LTE evolution for IoT connectivity, White Paper.
50 (11) (2012) 28–35. [29] Huawei, NB-IoT: Enabling new business opportunities, White

[8] K. Zheng, F. Hu, W. Wang, W. Xiang, M. Dohler, Radio Paper.

resource allocation in LTE-advanced cellular networks with [30] Qualcomm, Paving the path to Narrowband 5G with LTE In-
M2M communications, IEEE Communications Magazine 50 (7) ternet of Things (IoT), White Paper.
(2012) 184–192. [31] Ericsson, Cellular networks for massive IoT, White Paper.
[9] Y. Mehmood, F. Ahmad, I. Yaqoob, A. Adnane, M. Imran, [32] Nokia, Dynamic end-to-end network slicing for 5G, White Pa-

S. Guizani, Internet-of-Things-Based Smart Cities: Recent ad- per.

vances and challenges, IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (9) [33] V. Y. Borodakiy, I. A. Buturlin, I. Gudkova, K. E. Samouylov,
(2017) 16–24. Modelling and analysing a dynamic resource allocation scheme
[10] V. Petrov, S. Edelev, M. Komar, Y. Koucheryavy, Towards the for M2M traffic in LTE networks, in: Proc. of NEW2AN Con-
era of wireless keys: How the IoT can change authentication

ference, 2013, pp. 420–426.

paradigm, in: Proc. of IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things [34] Y. P. E. Wang, X. Lin, A. Adhikary, A. Grovlen,
(WF-IoT), 2014, pp. 51–56. Y. Sui, Y. Blankenship, J. Bergman, H. S. Raza-
[11] Machine-Type and other Mobile Data Applications Communi- ghi, A primer on 3GPP narrowband Internet of Things,
cations Enhancements, 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 23.887 IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (3) (2017) 117–123.
(August 2012). doi:10.1109/MCOM.2017.1600510CM.
[12] V. Petrov, A. Samuylov, V. Begishev, D. Moltchanov, S. An- [35] V. Petrov, K. Mikhaylov, D. Moltchanov, S. Andreev, G. Fodor,
dreev, K. Samouylov, Y. Koucheryavy, Vehicle-based relay as- J. Torsner, H. Yanikomeroglu, M. J. Juntti, Y. Koucheryavy,
sistance for opportunistic crowdsensing over Narrowband IoT When IoT keeps people in the loop: A path towards a new
(NB-IoT), IEEE Internet of Things Journal PP (99) (2017) 1– global utility, CoRR abs/1703.00541. arXiv:1703.00541.
1. URL
[13] G. Margelis, R. Piechocki, D. Kaleshi, P. Thomas, Low through- [36] R. Ratasuk, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Ghosh, B. Vejlgaard, Nar-
put networks for the IoT: Lessons learned from industrial imple- rowband LTE-M system for M2M communication, in: Proc. of
mentations, in: Proc. of the IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet IEEE 80th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), 2014.
of Things (WF-IoT), 2015, pp. 181–186. [37] S. Yashkov, A. Yashkova, Processor sharing: A survey of the
[14] S. Andreev, O. Galinina, A. Pyattaev, M. Gerasimenko, T. Tir- mathematical theory, Automation and Remote Control 68 (9)
ronen, J. Torsner, J. Sachs, M. Dohler, Y. Koucheryavy, Un-


(2007) 1662–1731. grated broadband switching system, IEEE Journal on Selected

[38] H. S. Kim, N. B. Shroff, Loss probability calculations and Areas in Communications (IEEE JSAC) 9 (9) (1991) 1524–1536.
asymptotic analysis for finite buffer multiplexers, IEEE/ACM [41] T. C. Hou, A. K. Wong, Queueing analysis for ATM switching
Transactions on Networking 9 (6) (2001) 755–768. of mixed continuous-bit-rate and bursty traffic, in: Proc. of the
[39] J. P. Jarvis, Approximating the equilibrium behavior of multi- 9th Ninth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
server loss systems, Management Science 31 (2) (1985) 235–239. Communication Societies (IEEE INFOCOM), 1990, pp. 660–
[40] A.-M. Lin, J. A. Silvester, Priority queueing strategies and 667.
buffer allocation protocols for traffic control at an ATM inte-