- This topic has 4 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Pix,
please to advise me about these causes:
1.How to remove traffic from micro to neighbours macro, because this micro is high loaded.And how to improve the HO in this micro because there are a lot HO due to bad SACCH?
2. How to change HO parameters in two macro cells for earlier HO because these are road cells and sometime there is no HO to better cell and calls are droped..I was tried to change HO_margins but nothing happend…Thank you in advance…
vanG,
1/ what is your macro->micro Ho strategy ? ho PBGT, ho umbrella->micro, ho preferred band ?
you must act at 2 levels: the idle mode and the connected mode. The whole idea is to keep “static” MS in the micro, and keep “moving” MS in the macro.* For idle : reduce the CRO of the micro cell, and increase the penalty time and temporary offset (pt = 60s, to = 40dB)
* For connected : avoid incoming HO from macro-> micro by increasing the averaging window of the macro-> micro HOthe BAD SACCH ho is very useful, but very powerful. You should strongly decrease the L RXLEV MCHO to a low level, for example : -93dBm, and keep the N BAD SACCH to a standard value (4). To keep good, qos, increase the L RXLEV DL H to -89dBm (or even higher).
2/ for road cell : set HO MARGIN (a,b) = HO MARGIN (b,a) = 0dB, and A PBGT HO = 6 SACCH.
if those two cells are also adjacent to “city” cell, then there is a risk of ping pong ho with them, becaus ethe A PBGT HO is so short. In this case, increase the HO Margin towards the city cell :
HO MARGIN (a, city) = 8dB (for example)
That will limit the ping pong effect.Regards
Hi Pix,
thak you for your answer..I’ll try and give you feedback..
BR,>>rrb
Hi Pix,
I can’t find “L RXLEV MCHO “. You mean U_RXLEV_DL_MCHO (now is -91dBm) or not ?vang, yes, that’s the one and only one !
the default value is rather high (IMO), but it really depends on many many things.
Apply my previous mail carefully, that willl give you solid grounds for wild & fun optimization 😉
