t geometry-based ICIC schemes provide the highest performance gains as compared to the other ICIC mechanisms. Therefore, it is important to obtain UE geometry information with sufficient accuracy by the scheduling eNode B. Recognizing this, the use of measurement reporting techniques to obtain this knowledge is currently under dis- cussion in the 3GPP [45]. The ICIC gain is greatly dependent on the load of the system, which is in line with the findings of several other papers; see, for instance, Fodor [27] and Kiani, Dien, and Gesbert [33]. Figure 4.14 plots results for the nonfull buffer-non-peak rate limited traffic sce- nario as well (plotting only the no-ICIC and the best ICIC algorithms). As it can be seen from the figure, only a negligible difference is found in the fifth percentile throughput curves of the ICIC and the no-ICIC cases. Because there is no con- tinuous traffic load on the system (nonfull buffer case), the occasional collisions that occur in the no-ICIC case can be compensated by additional RB allocation, which results in the same user-level throughput. However, the differences in terms of consumed UE power and lower number of bits carried per RB are clearly visible from the figure. At the time of writing, the status of ICIC is captured by 3GPP R1-075014 [46]. According to this fairly broad consensus in RAN1, the release-8 LTE standard will not support ICIC in the downlink. Uplink intercell interference coordination consists of two interrelated mechanisms, the details of which are currently under discussion within the 3GPP. The first part is a proactive ICIC mechanism supported with communication over the X2 interface between eNode Bs [46]. The basic idea of this scheme is that a potentially disturbing eNode B proactively sends an RB-specific indication to its potentially disturbed neighbor. This message indicates which resource blocks will be scheduled (with a high probability) with high power (i.e., by cell edge UEs). Thus, this message allows the receiving eNode B to try to avoid scheduling