n traffic types. Figure 11.7 shows the probability of error as a function of the latency under orthogonal bandwidth allocation with four-fifth of the bandwidth allocated to URLLC and one-fifth to eMBB. MPC with k = 2 can reduce latency by 0.3 ms in eMBB and 0.0075 ms in URLLC, with respect to MPD at the error probability of 10-5. Furthermore, dedicating a large band- width to URLLC can significantly enhance the probability of error as compared to shared FH, but this happens at the cost of a larger latency for the eMBB service. 11 Flexible Function Split Over Ethernet Enabling RAN Slicing n paths Ethernet-based multipath FH Path 1 Fountain Protocol Protocol Fountain decoder stack stack encoder Path n Figure 11.6 Multipath FH with erasure coding (MPC) for downlink communication with MAC-PHY split [18]. Table 11.3 System model parameter. Parameters Values Ethernet capacity 100 Mbps Packet arrival rates 8 eMBB, 24 URLLC (packet/ms) IP packet size 1500 eMBB, 500 URLLC (bytes) Figure 11.8 shows the probability of error obtained with path split where Nu = 8 is the number of paths allocated to URLLC of the available path, n=10. For URLLC, MPC can manage to reduce latency by 0.0231 ms as compared to MPD at the error probability of 10-5. Moreover, the probability of error of path split is improved by 60% as compared to shared FH. To summarize, the error probability is improved as compared to MPD by proposing a solution based on erasure coding and multipath transmission on the FH network. Further- more, by slicing the FH resources adequately via orthogonal allocation transmission, the error probability can be reduced compared to non-orthogonal FH allocation. References MPC, k=2 MPC, k=2 Shared FH Shared FH Latency (ms) Latency (ms) Figure 11.7 Probability of error VS. latency functions for SP, MPD, and MPC under orthogonal FH bandwidth split with eMBB bandwidth fraction 1/5: (a) eMBB; (b) URLLC. Source: © 2018, IEEE Reprinted, with permission Mountaser et al. 2018 [18]. MPC, k = 2 MPC, k = 2 Shared FH Shared FH Latency (ms)