One-Way Delay Model for 5G Low Latency, High Data Rate Communications

One-Way Delay Model for 5G Low Latency, High Data Rate Communications Hamid Hassani, Sonia M. Heemstra de Groot, Ignas G. Niemegeers, Kishor C. Joshi, George Exarchakos

arXiv:2610.13761v1 [cs.NI] 9 Oct 2026

Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands {h.hassani,sheemstradegroot,i.g.m.m.niemegeers,k.c.joshi,g.exarchakos}@tue.nl

Abstract—Achieving low delay and high data rate communication in 5G requires preventing persistent queue backlogs at path bottlenecks. A key indicator of queue buildup is an increase in one-way delay (OWD) of packets. However, accurately measuring OWD is challenging due to synchronization issues between the sender and receiver. Moreover, using OWD to infer the onset of queueing can be inefficient. For instance, congestion control mechanisms that rely on latency as a congestion signal may result in cellular network underutilization, see, e.g., [1]. Thus, to develop more efficient rate control approaches, it is crucial not only to estimate OWD accurately but also to perform a more fine-grained analysis that provides detailed insights into the queue status. This paper presents a framework for modeling OWD in 5G edge networks, where the wireless link is typically the path bottleneck. We demonstrate that OWD is dominated by queueing delay (QD), particularly at high data rates. We analyze QD by decomposing it into two main components: aggregation delay and channel access time. Aggregation delay can be accurately measured at the user equipment (UE), and channel access time can be estimated based on network conditions. Our key contribution shows that QD, while challenging to measure directly at the base station (BS), can be closely approximated by combining these components. We validate this model through NS3 simulations under varying network loads and single- and multi-UE scenarios. This framework provides a foundation for developing advanced mechanisms for congestion control and bottleneck detection in 5G networks.

I. Introduction Next-generation applications such as eXtended reality (XR) come with strict requirements for data rate, latency, and reliability, which demand a well-designed and wellconfigured network [2]. For instance, [3] states that to provide a full immersive experience, the data rate should range from 100Gbps to 1Tbps, latency should be less than 1ms, and reliability should achieve a level of 5 to 7 nines. These requirements cannot be entirely met by 5G or 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) networks [3]–[7], and many network capabilities will need to grow exponentially during the decade ahead to unleash the full potential of data-intensive technologies [8]–[10]. While much attention has been and is being focused on physical and link layer standards, primarily by 3GPP and IEEE 802.11 working groups, it is essential to have well-designed transport layer protocols to avoid congestion collapse and satisfy the stringent requirements of next-generation applications [11]. For example, [1] has experimentally compared the end-toend performance of multiple congestion control algorithms

using the Pantheon platform [12] in a commercial LTE network (AT&T), and showed the variability of performance in terms of data rate and one-way delay (OWD) for the different congestion control mechanisms might be significant. According to the applied congestion signal1 , the congestion control mechanisms at the transport layer are categorized into two main groups: loss-based and delaybased approaches. For loss-based solutions, e.g., TCP Cubic [13] and TCP BIC [14], packet loss signals congestion. In contrast, delay-based solutions such as TCP BBR [15] and TCP Vegas [16] depend on delay measurements, e.g., round-trip time (RTT), to infer the queue buildup at the path bottleneck. There are alternative approaches, such as using network-wide sniffing [1], [17], [18] or explicit congestion notification (ECN) protocols like L4S [19], but these solutions are often impractical due to deployment and upgrade difficulties. Using packet loss as a congestion signal is not suitable for next-generation applications that would require both high data rate and low latency, as it triggers action, i.e., adjusting the send rate, only after queue overflow has occurred, resulting in significant queueing delay (QD) [20]. On the other hand, for delay-based approaches, the use of RTT to estimate the onset of queueing is also known to be inaccurate when there is queueing in the reverse path, i.e., asymmetric forward and reverse paths [21]. Measurements of OWD might be used to infer the onset of queueing and adjust the send rate, but measuring OWD is known to be challenging due to, e.g., clock offset and skew between server and client [22], as is inference of queueing from OWD. To address the challenges mentioned above, we introduce a framework for modeling packet delay in 5G edge architectures, where the path bottleneck is the radio link control (RLC) buffer at the base station (BS). Note that queueing delay is a major component of end-to-end delay [19], [23], [24], however, it is typically measurable only at the BS, which is often challenging, if not impossible, in practice. Our main contribution is a framework for measuring queueing delay with acceptable precision. We demonstrate that the queueing delay at 5G BSs consists of 1 An indicator used by congestion control mechanisms to detect congestion within the network.

two primary components: aggregation delay and channel access time. We then propose approaches to measure (/estimate) these components. We validate our model through NS3 simulations across various scenarios. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In Section II, we discuss related work. We recap some essential preliminaries in Section III. Next, we present the system architecture in Section IV, followed by an analysis of latency in Section V. In Section VI, we present the NS3 simulation results. We conclude the paper in Section VII. II. Related Work Previous work on OWD analysis is primarily divided into data-driven and model-driven approaches. As a prevalent data-driven approach, machine learning (ML) methods leverage historical data to identify and predict delay patterns. For instance, in [25], domain adversarial neural networks were applied to estimate OWD in 5G networks by analyzing data collected at BSs. [26] investigated RTT violation prediction in 5G networks with multiple ML algorithms to showcase their utility in delay prediction. While these approaches offer valuable insights, they are highly sensitive to the quality of training data and the availability of large training datasets, which are often challenging to obtain from commercial networks. Additionally, the high computational complexity of ML models can lead to increased delay [27], particularly when deploying large models on devices with limited processing capabilities, which may not always be suitable for low latency applications. Furthermore, their performance may vary due to variations in user equipment (UE) capabilities, which are often not uniform across commercial mobile devices [25]. Model-driven approaches, based on queueing theory and stochastic network calculus, use probability distributions and stochastic processes to set a theoretical basis for latency analysis. For example, [28] proposed a statistical model to predict OWD in V2X applications within 5G networks, while [29] used the effective capacity framework to derive an upper bound on delay violation probability, providing insights into delay dynamics. [30] expanded the proposed model in [29] by developing a reliability model for beyond 5G networks, incorporating retransmissions, multiple delay components, and interactions across network layers. However, such models may have limited accuracy in capturing complex and dynamic systems [27], posing challenges for real-time adaptation. III. Preliminaries A. Transport Block (TB) TBs are used to refer to MAC PDUs2 (/PHY SDUs) in LTE/5G networks. After receiving the allocated transport block size (TBS) information for each UE from the 2 The data entity from/to a higher protocol layer is termed service data unit (SDU), while the corresponding entity to/from a lower protocol layer is called a protocol data unit (PDU) [31].

Fig. 1. RLC segmentation in 5G, adapted from [31].

MAC scheduler, the RLC layer selects a specific number of packets and attaches the header to each packet to construct RLC PDUs. These packets are then delivered to the MAC layer for transmission within one TB3 . To maximize bandwidth efficiency and fill up the TB effectively, the last RLC PDU may contain a segment of an SDU [31], see Fig. 1. Note that the TBS is determined by the number of allocated physical resource blocks (PRBs) and the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) [32]. B. RLC Queue There are at least three levels of queueing within 5G networks: i) the RLC sublayer, ii) the SDAP sublayer, and (iii) the UPF network function buffers [23]. However, since the wireless link is typically significantly slower than the wired domain, the path bottleneck typically lies at the entity that holds the last buffer in the wired domain, i.e., the RLC buffer [23], [24]. Note that for each connected UE, there are one or more PDU sessions, each with one or more QoS flows and data radio bearers (DRBs) in the user plane, responsible for carrying the user data [31]. 5G networks support up to 8 DRBs per UE, with each DRB having its dedicated RLC buffer in both the uplink and downlink [23]. IV. System Architecture In this paper, we consider the edge architecture of the type illustrated in Fig. 2 (a), where the BS serves as the bottleneck in an end-to-end path from the edge server (ES) to UEs. This is due to the rate mismatch between the wired backhaul and the air interface. As depicted in Fig. 2, the BS adheres to the per-UE queueing policy, meaning that each UE has its dedicated queue at the BS. A. Assumptions 1) System Model: The network under consideration is a 5G network, where the edge server is located close to the end users, i.e., at the network edge. The path bottleneck is located in the wireless link. 2) Data Flow: The downlink traffic can be periodic or bursty but, without loss of generality, is considered identical, indicating that all traffic flows toward a UE are carried by a single DRB, thus sharing the same buffer at the RLC layer. Note that the proposed model applies to a single RLC queue, and since traffic flows 3 Note that up to two transport blocks per UE can be used in the case of spatial multiplexing with more than four layers [31].

TABLE I Definitions of key notations used in modeling delay.

(a) System model

(b) User-plane protocol stack

Fig. 2. (a) Edge transport architecture with a bottleneck in the wireless link, i.e., at the RLC layer of the BS, as indicated on the schematic. (b) Abstract resource allocation schematic at the BS.

carried by different DRBs are stored in dedicated buffers, our approach remains applicable to non-identical traffic flows as well. We assume an ideal backhaul, and that packets within a TB experience consistent transmission time from the ES to the BS, traveling along the same path. Furthermore, all data packets can fit within one maximum transmission unit (MTU) without requiring segmentation. We also assume that the RLC layer operates in unacknowledged mode (UM), which does not support packet retransmission and is used for real-time services. V. Latency Analysis We focus on the one-way delay of packets transmitted from the ES to UEs within the 5G edge network presented in Fig. 2 (a). The one-way delay includes several random components such as processing time, queueing delay, transmission delay, and alignment delay [33]. However, the most significant (and often overlooked) source of delay is typically the queueing delay [19] at the RLC layer of the BS [23], [32]. Note that, for ease of presentation, we will refer to this source of delay as queueing delay unless stated otherwise. The queueing delay of a packet is the duration it spends waiting at the RLC queue of the BS until it is delivered to the MAC layer for transmission over the air interface. This period is influenced by various factors, including the underlying access technology and the number of earlierarriving packets in the queue awaiting transmission over the wireless link. Furthermore, the queueing delay is significantly affected by the MAC scheduling policy, the queue occupancy of other users, buffer sizes, and the channel quality of connected UEs to the BS. Suppose all RLC buffers at the BS are empty, and no other packet is being transmitted. In that case, the queueing delay of any incoming packets will be nearly zero or, at worst, bounded by one scheduling interval (/slot duration). However, the queueing delay will be prolonged in the presence of substantial (cross-)traffic and a large backlog of packets waiting for transmission. Fig. 2 (b) depicts the transmission buffer at the RLC layer as well as the cross-layer communication between the MAC and PHY layers to encapsulate queued packets into

Tsnd,ES,j

Send time of packet j at the edge server

Tarr,RLC,j

Arrival time of packet j at the RLC queue (BS)

Tdep,RLC,j

Departure time of packet j from the RLC queue (BS)

ADj

Aggregation delay of packet j

Taccess,b

Channel access time of TB b

QDj

Queueing delay of packet j

TBs for transmission. Note that the scheduler is implemented at the MAC layer. In each scheduling interval, the scheduler assesses the buffer occupancy of connected UEs and subsequently initiates requests to the PHY layer to allocate resources (/PRBs) to the identified queues. The scheduling interval is fixed at 1ms in LTE and variable in 5G depending on, e.g., numerology and scheduling policy [34]. A. Modeling Delay The BS adheres to the per-UE queueing policy, meaning that each UE has its dedicated queue at the BS [23], [35], [36]. We proceed by defining the necessary terms required to analyze and model the queueing delay in 5G edge networks, see Table I. We assume that, at the MAC layer, packets {i, i + 1, ..., i + n} are assembled into TB b to be delivered to the PHY layer for transmission over the air interface. We define the aggregation level as the number of packets, i.e., MAC SDUs (/RLC PDUs), that are grouped within one TB. For instance, the aggregation level of TB b is n + 1. Note that a lower index indicates an earlier arrival time for the corresponding packet. Note that the aggregation level discussed in this paper differs from the PHY layer aggregation level, which is used to adjust the code rate of the PDCCH channel, see, e.g., [31]. With access to the MAC layer information, the UE can accurately measure the aggregation level, as all packets aggregated in a TB share the same MAC timestamps, i.e., they arrive at the MAC layer of the UE at the same time. This can be achieved, e.g., by using open-source UEs such as OpenAirInterface [37] and srsRAN [38] or software tools like Mobileinsight [39], which run on commercial offthe-shelf mobile handsets. Fig. 3 provides a visual representation of the terms defined in Table I. As depicted in Fig. 3, we define the queueing delay of packet j that is assembled into TB b as follows: QDj = ADj + Taccess,b

(1)

where ADj denotes the aggregation delay of packet j, and Taccess,b represents the channel access time of TB b, as depicted in Fig. 3. 1) Aggregation Delay: ADj represents the time that packet j ∈ {i, i + 1, ..., i + n} waits in the RLC queue until

We proceed by defining Tsys as the time associated with delay factors that are either fixed or bounded according to NR specifications. These factors include processing time at the BS and UE, transmission time interval (TTI), and alignment delay, which can be determined based on the network configurations like numerology and UE capability, see, e.g., [33], [40]. In Section VI, we show that Tsys can be comparable to the QD under low network loads. Our focus is on edge architectures where the ES and the UPF are collocated with the BS, see, e.g., Fig. 3 in [41]. With this architecture, the delay between the ES and BS is typically small and negligible. Therefore, we assume that QD is a major component of end-to-end delay and approximate the OWD of a packet j as follows: OWDj ≈ QDj + Tsys Fig. 3. Visual representation of terms defined in Table I.

the arrival of the last packet in TB b. This is defined as follows: ADj = Tarr, RLC,i+n − Tarr, RLC,j

(2)

As all packets within a TB experience an identical delay from the ES to the BS and no re-ordering occurs in the physical link, see Section IV, we can rewrite (2) as follows: ADj ≈ Tsnd,ES,i+n − Tsnd,ES,j for j ∈ {i, i + 1, ..., i + n}

(3)

Note that the first packet in a TB experiences the largest aggregation delay compared to the other packets within that TB, while the aggregation delay of the last packet in a TB is zero. The ES adds Tsnd,ES,j in the payload of packet j using the system epoch/kernel time. The UE can then extract this timestamp from the packet payload to measure the aggregation delay. 2) Channel Access Time: Taccess,b refers to the duration between the arrival of the last packet in TB b at the RLC queue of the BS and the departure of the corresponding TB from that queue. We define Taccess,b as: Taccess,b = Tdep, RLC,j − Tarr, RLC,i+n for j ∈ {i, i + 1, ..., i + n}

(4)

As depicted in Fig. 3, the packets aggregated into TB b are delivered to the PHY layer simultaneously so that they all share the exact departure time from the RLC queue. Therefore, Taccess,b is identical for all the aggregated packets into TB b. For the last packet in TB b, i.e., packet i + n, we can rewrite (1) as follows: Taccess,b = QDi+n − ADi+n {Using (3) with j = i + n} ≈ QDi+n − (Tsnd,ES,i+n − Tsnd,ES,i+n ) = QDi+n

(5)

(6)

Note that if the latency between the ES and BS is significant, we can incorporate it into Tsys as it remains constant or bounded under the assumption of an ideal backhaul network, see Section IV-A. We can then rewrite (5) using (6) as follows: Taccess,b ≈ OWDi+n − Tsys

(7)

where OWDi+n is the OWD of the last packet in TB b. 3) Estimating QD: We substitute (3) and (7) into (1) and approximate the QD of packet j ∈ {i, i + 1, ..., i + n} assembled into TB b as follows:

QDj ≈ Tsnd,ES,i+n − Tsnd,ES,j + OWDi+n − Tsys | {z } | {z } (8) AD

Taccess

Note that the first packet in a TB experiences the largest queueing delay compared to the other packets within that TB. Using QD instead of RTT provides a more accurate indication of congestion at the path bottleneck. Therefore, (8) can be applied to design low-delay congestion control mechanisms that react more effectively to the onset of queueing at the RLC layer of the BS, facilitating lowdelay and high data rate communication in 5G networks. The aggregation delay and channel access time are influenced by various factors. These include the arrival rate of packets at the RLC queue, the MAC scheduling policy at the BS, cross-traffic load, and the channel quality (/MCS) of UEs connected to the BS. B. Analyzing Taccess,b While a precise analysis of Taccess,b can be challenging, knowing which packets are assembled in one TB can assist in conducting a coarse-grained analysis of it. Recall that this information can be readily and accurately measured at the UE, having access to MAC layer information. Assume that (i) packets {i, i + 1, ..., i + n} belong to TB b, and (ii) at time Tarr,RLC,i+n , the last packet of TB b, i.e., packet i + n, arrived at the RLC queue. Furthermore, consider that the next scheduling decision occurs at time

75

30

50

20

25

10 0 0

50

100

150

0 200

100 75

100

Queueing Delay One-Way Delay QD / OWD (%) PRB Util. (%)

75

50

50

25

25

0 0

25

50

75

0 100

QD / OWD and PRB (%)

40

100

Queueing Delay One-Way Delay QD / OWD (%) PRB Util. (%)

Delay (ms)

50

QD / OWD and PRB (%)

60

Delay (ms)

t0 , where t0 ≥ Tarr,RLC,i+n . Recall that when packets of TB b are not completely delivered to the RLC layer, Taccess,b is zero, and it starts to increase only when the last packet of TB b arrives at the RLC queue. Therefore, Taccess,b = 0 for t ≤ Tarr,RLC,i+n . We define SchedIntv as the scheduling interval of the MAC scheduler, i.e., the duration of one slot. For t ≥ Tarr,RLC,i+n , we divide the network operation into two distinct phases/scenarios: • Scenario 1: At the scheduling decision at t0 , the MAC scheduler allocates a sufficient number of PRBs to transmit TB b. We, therefore, have:

Send Rate (Mbps)

Send Rate (Mbps)

(a) Single UE

(b) Multiple UEs, UDP traffic

Fig. 4. Network performance for (a) a single UE scenario with UDP traffic, (b) 2 UEs, one using UDP and the other using TCP Cubic. 60sec of simulation.

0 ≤ Taccess,b < SchedIntv If Taccess,b remains within this range for a series of consecutive TBs, it implies that the queue is drained in each scheduling (without persistent queue backlog). • Scenario 2: At the scheduling decision at time t0 , the TB b cannot be granted transmission, so it should wait for the subsequent scheduling periods, which are set at t0 + z ∗ SchedIntv where z ∈ {1, 2, . . .}. This situation occurs when, e.g., there are already packets in the queue (arrived earlier), so those packets should be transmitted first prior to the TB of interest. For this scenario, we have:

accurately on the UE side, as it relies on a single clock reference. We then add this delay to (8) to estimate the QD of the packets grouped into that TB. VI. Model Evaluation with NS3

Using (8), we can approximate the QD of packets assembled in a TB only if the UE successfully decodes the TB upon the first transmission attempt. However, if the TB is erroneous and the UE is unable to decode it, the UE sends a NACK to the BS, requesting subsequent retransmission(s)4 . We use the new data indicator (NDI), which is included in the HARQ information of the DL-SCH transport channel, to identify whether a TB is a new transmission or a retransmission. If the NDI in the received HARQ information is toggled, this indicates a new transmission; otherwise, it specifies a retransmission of the respective TB [43]. The sequence number for retransmissions can be determined, e.g., by using the redundancy version (RV) sequence number within the HARQ information. The interval from the reception of the first transmission to the reception of the final retransmission represents the “effective” delay that contributes to the QD, during which the TB remains in the retransmission buffer at the MAC layer of the BS. Note that this duration can be measured

We use the NS3 network simulator with the 5G-LENA module [44] to simulate 3GPP NR non-standalone 5G networks. To retrieve the data required for assessing the proposed model, we modified the RLC and MAC layers of 5G-LENA, i.e., lte-rlc-um.cc and nr-gnb-mac.cc scripts. The RLC layer operates in UM, meaning there are no packet retransmissions at this layer. Note that the 5G-LENA implementation uses a per-UE queueing policy at the BS. We use a channel with line-of-sight characteristics, i.e., InH_OfficeOpen_Los, operating over 40MHz bandwidth in the n78 frequency band. The numerology is set to 0, i.e., 15kHz subcarrier spacing. We use the default packet scheduler of the 5G-LENA module, i.e., NrMacSchedulerTdmaRR, which allocates available resources equally among UEs [45]. The BS transmission power is set to 10dBm, and the MCS is fixed at 28. We use the UDP transport protocol to validate our model. Note that the MTU in our setup is configured to 1500B5 . Fig. 4 illustrates the network performance for both single- and multi-UE scenarios across varying UDP send rates. For the multi-UE case, the results are shown for the UE with UDP traffic, while the TCP flow to the other UE is considered as cross-traffic. As we can see in Fig. 4 (a) and (b), (i) PRB utilization increases with the data send rate (/network load), and (ii) both OWD and QD also rise gradually as the send rate increases. However, when PRB utilization approaches its maximum, there is a sharp increase in delay due to network congestion and queue buildup at the BS. Observe in Fig. 4 (b) that the PRB utilization of the UE with UDP traffic reaches a peak of ≈ 50% when the network load is high. This is due to the fair scheduling policy applied at the MAC layer. As shown in Fig. 4, the proportion of QD within OWD decreases slightly at low network loads, as the increase

4 Note that if the UE still cannot decode a TB after 3 retransmissions, the TB will be discarded [42].

5 The majority of commercial networks configure their MTU sizes within the range of 1428 to 1500 bytes [46].

Taccess,b ≥ SchedIntv Scenario 1 represents an optimal network operation, where persistent queue buildup is avoided, which is crucial for achieving low delay and high data rate communication in 5G networks. C. MAC Layer Retransmission

50

100

150

0 0

2.5 25

50

75

0 100

OWD QD AD + Taccess

1

MAC TS

0 500

510

520

100 98

96 530

43

OWD QD AD + T

42

MAC TS

918

access

41

916

40 1.2

1.202

1.204 104

Send Rate (Mbps)

#pckt

#pckt

(a) Single UE

(b) Multiple UEs

(a) Single-UE, 60Mbps

(b) Single-UE, 160Mbps

155

3 2

OWD QD AD + Taccess

1

150

MAC TS

0 500

510

520

145 530

55

Delay (ms)

Delay (ms)

in QD is smaller than that in OWD. In contrast, near the network saturation point where resource utilization approaches its maximum, the percentage of QD within OWD rises significantly (> 90%) in both scenarios. This trend indicates that, at higher network loads, QD becomes the dominant factor contributing to OWD. Note that the region close to the network saturation point represents an optimal operating range for high data rate, low latency applications. Furthermore, the proportion of QD within OWD is higher in the presence of cross-traffic, see Fig. 4 (b), compared to the single-UE scenario depicted in Fig. 4 (a). This increase is due to the higher Taccess in the multi-UE scenario caused by scheduling latency. Fig. 5 demonstrates the contributions of AD and Taccess to QD, represented as AD/QD (%) and Taccess /QD (%), respectively, for both single- and multi-UE scenarios over a range of send rates. As the send rate increases, distinct trends develop among these metrics. As illustrated in Fig. 5 (a) and (b), AD/QD initially rises due to an increase in the aggregation level, reaching peak levels of 80% for single-UE and 70% for multi-UE scenarios, near maximum PRB utilization. In contrast, Taccess /QD declines with increasing the send rate, reaching 20% for single-UE and 30% for multi-UE scenarios, prior to the onset of queueing at the BS. However, as PRB utilization increases and the network begins to congest, these trends shift, with Taccess emerging as the dominant factor in QD (> 95%). These results indicate that to achieve high data rate, low latency communication, it is critical to minimize (/bound) Taccess while simultaneously regulating AD via monitoring the aggregation level of received TBs. This corresponds to the network operating region discussed as Scenario 1, see Section V-B. The validation of the proposed model is illustrated in Fig. 6 for both low and high network loads in singleand multi-UE scenarios. As shown in Fig. 6, the curve for AD+Taccess matches the QD curve, see (1), across different network loads and scenarios. From Fig. 6, we can also observe the following: (i) the first packet in a TB experiences the highest delay, while the last packet encounters the lowest delay within the same TB. Recall that packets

4

RLC Dep. Time (ms)

Send Rate (Mbps)

Fig. 5. Analysis of queueing delay in (a) a single UE scenario, (b) 2 UEs, one using UDP and the other using TCP Cubic. 60sec of simulation.

784

54 53

OWD QD AD + Taccess

52

782

MAC TS

51

780

50 5000

5010

RLC Dep. Time (ms)

0 200

25

2

920

44

5020

RLC Dep. Time (ms)

0 0

5

3

45

Delay (ms)

5

50

102

RLC Dep. Time (ms)

25

7.5

PRB Util. (%) Agg Level

4

Delay (ms)

10

75

10

AD / QD (%) Taccess / QD (%)

Aggregation Level

50

100

%

15

PRB Util. (%) Agg Level

%

75

20

AD / QD (%) Taccess / QD (%)

Aggregation Level

100

5030

#pckt

#pckt

(c) Multi-UE, 40Mbps

(d) Multi-UE, 80Mbps

Fig. 6. Model validation in scenarios with (i) a single UE: (a) low network load, (b) high network load; and (ii) 2 UEs, one using UDP and the other using TCP Cubic: (c) low network load, (d) high network load.

within a TB share an identical RLC departure time; (ii) both OWD and QD exhibit similar patterns. The sawtooth pattern observed in OWD and QD is attributed to the aggregation of multiple packets into a single TB. While these simulations involve periodic packet transmission, a similar pattern is expected for bursty traffic; (iii) there is a persistent gap between OWD and QD, around 2.5ms, primarily due to constant or bounded sources of latency in 5G networks, such as processing time and TTI [33], as denoted by Tsys in Section V. VII. Summary and Conclusions In this paper, we present a novel framework for approximating queueing delay in 5G edge networks. We model the queueing delay at the BS as a combination of measurable delay components: aggregation delay and channel access time. We then show that the UE can accurately measure the aggregation delay and estimate the channel access time based on network conditions. Our findings demonstrate that at high network loads, queueing delay at the RLC layer of the BS significantly influences OWD. Through NS3 simulations, we validate our model across various network loads and user scenarios, highlighting its potential for practical QD estimation. This framework can be used with various traffic types regardless of network load and accounts for retransmissions, providing valuable insights for addressing the critical challenges in achieving low latency and high data rate communication in 5G networks. We plan to experimentally evaluate the accuracy of our model using open-source 5G platforms in different scenarios and traffic types. Furthermore, we aim to investigate

the application of this framework in designing an end-toend rate allocation policy at the transport layer to enable low delay and high data rate communication in 5G edge networks. Acknowledgment This work was supported by the Distributed Artificial Intelligent Systems (DAIS) project under the Key Digital Technologies Joint Undertaking (KDT JU), Grant Agreement No. 101007273. References [1] Y. Xie and K. Jamieson, “NG-Scope: Fine-Grained Telemetry for NextG Cellular Networks,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, Feb 2022. [2] D. G. Morin, P. Perez, and A. G. Armada, “Toward the Distributed Implementation of Immersive Augmented Reality Architectures on 5G Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 46–52, 2022. [3] W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Chen, “A Vision of 6G Wireless Systems: Applications, Trends, Technologies, and Open Research Problems,” IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 134– 142, 2020. [4] I. F. Akyildiz and H. Guo, “Wireless Communication Research Challenges for Extended Reality (XR),” ITU Journal on Future and Evolving Technologies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 273–287, 2022. [5] E. Reshef and C. Cordeiro, “Future Directions for Wi-Fi 8 and Beyond,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 50–55, 2022. [6] C. She, T. Q. Duong, T. Q. Quek, H. Viswanathan, and D. Lopez-Perez, “Guest Editorial: Intelligent Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications in 6G,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 12–13, 2023. [7] C. Deng, X. Fang, X. Han, X. Wang, L. Yan, R. He, Y. Long, and Y. Guo, “IEEE 802.11be Wi-Fi 7: New Challenges and Opportunities,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2136–2166, 2020. [8] (2022) Future Network Trends Driving Universal Metaverse Mobility. Accessed: May 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https: //www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/ericsson-technol ogy-review/articles/technology-trends-2022 [9] Adeia, “Immersive Media: Bringing Science Fiction to Commercial Reality,” Adeia, White Paper, May 2023. [10] SK Telecom, “5G Lessons Learned, 6G Key Requirements, 6G Network Evolution, and 6G Spectrum,” SK Telecom, White Paper, Aug 2023. [11] H. Hassani, F. Gringoli, and D. J. Leith, “Quick & Plenty: Achieving Low Delay & High Rate in 802.11ac Edge Networks,” Computer Networks, vol. 187, p. 107820, 2021. [12] F. Y. Yan, J. Ma, G. D. Hill, D. Raghavan, R. S. Wahby, P. Levis, and K. Winstein, “Pantheon: The Training Ground for Internet Congestion-Control Research,” in Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC), 2018, p. 731–743. [13] S. Ha, I. Rhee, and L. Xu, “CUBIC: A New TCP-Friendly High-Speed TCP Variant,” ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 64–74, July 2008. [14] L. Xu, K. Harfoush, and I. Rhee, “Binary Increase Congestion Control (BIC) for Fast Long-Distance Networks,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM), vol. 4, 2004, pp. 2514–2524. [15] N. Cardwell, Y. Cheng, C. S. Gunn, S. Hassas Yeganeh, and V. Jacobson, “BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 58–66, Jan 2017. [16] L. S. Brakmo, S. W. O’Malley, and L. L. Peterson, “TCP Vegas: New Techniques for Congestion Detection and Avoidance,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Communications Architectures, Protocols and Applications (SIGCOMM), 1994, p. 24–35.

[17] Y. Xie, F. Yi, and K. Jamieson, “PBE-CC: Congestion Control via Endpoint-Centric, Physical-Layer Bandwidth Measurements,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, Aug 2020, pp. 451–464. [18] H. Wan, X. Cao, A. Marder, and K. Jamieson, “NR-Scope: A Practical 5G Standalone Telemetry Tool,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), 2024, p. 73–80. [19] (2025) L4S. Accessed: May 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/research/l4s/ [20] A. S. Tanenbaum, N. Feamster, and D. Wetherall, Computer Networks, 6th ed. Pearson, 2021. [21] D. Chefrour, “One-Way Delay Measurement From Traditional Networks to SDN: A Survey,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 7, July 2021. [22] H. Hassani, F. Gringoli, and D. J. Leith, “Regulating Aggregation Level for Low Latency in 802.11ac,” in Proceedings of the Mediterranean Communication and Computer Networking Conference (MedComNet), 2020, pp. 1–7. [23] M. Irazabal, E. Lopez-Aguilera, I. Demirkol, and N. Nikaein, “Dynamic Buffer Sizing and Pacing as Enablers of 5G LowLatency Services,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 926–939, 2022. [24] M. Irazabal and N. Nikaein, “TC-RAN: A Programmable Traffic Control Service Model for 5G/6G SD-RAN,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 406–419, 2024. [25] A. Rao, H. Riaz, A. Zavodovski, R. Mochaourab, V. Berggren, and A. Johnsson, “Generalizable One-Way Delay Prediction Models for Heterogeneous UEs in 5G Networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), 2024, pp. 1–9. [26] A. Rao, W. Tärneberg, E. Fitzgerald, L. Corneo, A. Zavodovski, O. Rai, S. Johansson, V. Berggren, H. Riaz, C. Kilinc, and A. Johnsson, “Prediction and Exposure of Delays From a Base Station Perspective in 5G and Beyond Networks,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on 5G and Beyond Network Measurements, Modeling, and Use Cases, 2022, p. 8– 14. [27] O. L. A. López, N. H. Mahmood, M. Shehab, H. Alves, O. M. Rosabal, L. Marata, and M. Latva-Aho, “Statistical Tools and Methodologies for Ultrareliable Low-Latency Communication— A Tutorial,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 111, no. 11, pp. 1502–1543, 2023. [28] B. Coll-Perales, M. C. Lucas-Estañ, T. Shimizu, J. Gozalvez, T. Higuchi, S. Avedisov, O. Altintas, and M. Sepulcre, “Endto-End V2X Latency Modeling and Analysis in 5G Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 5094–5109, 2023. [29] M. Kountouris, N. Pappas, and A. Avranas, “QoS Provisioning in Large Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt), 2018, pp. 1–6. [30] A. Karnam, J. John, K. C. Joshi, G. Exarchakos, S. Heemstra de Groot, and I. Niemegeers, “Reliability Modeling for Beyond-5G Mission Critical Networks Using Effective Capacity,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2025, pp. 1–6. [31] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold, 5G/5G-ADVANCED: The New Generation Wireless Access Technology, 3rd ed. Elsevier, 2023. [32] F. Ronteix-Jacquet, “Reducing Latency and Jitter in 5G Radio Access Networks,” Ph.D. dissertation, Ecole nationale supérieure Mines-Télécom Atlantique, 2022. [33] O. Liberg, M. Sundberg, E. Wang, J. Bergman, J. Sachs, and G. Wikström, Cellular Internet of Things: From Massive Deployments to Critical 5G Applications. Academic Press, 2019. [34] ETSI, “5G; Study on New Radio (NR) Access Technology,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Technical Specification (TS) 138.912 v17.6.0, May 2022. [35] Y. Zaki, T. Pötsch, J. Chen, L. Subramanian, and C. Görg, “Adaptive Congestion Control for Unpredictable Cellular Net-

works,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, 2015, p. 509–522. [36] D. Brunello, I. Johansson S, M. Ozger, and C. Cavdar, “Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput in 5G Networks,” in Proceedings of the 93rd IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2021-Spring), 2021, pp. 1–7. [37] N. Nikaein, M. K. Marina, S. Manickam, A. Dawson, R. Knopp, and C. Bonnet, “OpenAirInterface: A Flexible Platform for 5G Research,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 5, p. 33–38, Oct 2014. [38] (2024) 5G - srsRAN Project. Accessed: May 10, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.srslte.com/5g [39] Y. Li, C. Peng, Z. Yuan, J. Li, H. Deng, and T. Wang, “MobileInsight: Extracting and Analyzing Cellular Network Information on Smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom), 2016, p. 202–215. [40] S. Nagata, L. H. Wang, and K. Takeda, “Industry Perspectives,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2–4, 2017. [41] ETSI, “MEC in 5G Networks,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), White Paper, June 2018. [42] ——, “5G; NR; Multiplexing and Channel Coding,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Technical Specification (TS) 138.212 v18.7.0, July 2025. [43] ——, “5G; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) Protocol Specification,” European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Technical Specification (TS) 138.321 v18.6.0, July 2025. [44] N. Patriciello, S. Lagen, B. Bojovic, and L. Giupponi, “An E2E Simulator for 5G NR Networks,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 96, p. 101933, 2019. [45] OpenSim CTTC/CERCA, NR Module User Manual, 2024, release 3.3. [Online]. Available: https://cttc-lena.gitlab.io/nr/n rmodule.pdf [46] A. Osseiran, J. F. Monserrat, and W. Mohr, Mobile and Wireless Communications for IMT‐Advanced and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Related documents

• One-Way Delay Model for 5G Low Latency, High Data Rate Communications#1298257
• RAPID: Proactive Rate Control for Enabling High Data Rate and Low Latency in 5G Edge Networks#1298245
• RAPID: Proactive Rate Control for Enabling High Data Rate and Low Latency in 5G Edge Networks#1291758
• Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)#502482
• Something a Host Could Do with Source Quench: The Source Quench Introduced Delay (SQuID)#134836