Mission Critical Service Server Priority Arbitration

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current communication networks face challenges in efficiently managing priority handling for Mission Critical (MC) services, particularly in group communication scenarios where dynamic priority adjustments are needed based on factors like geographical location and user roles, leading to inefficient priority management across different MC service platforms and providers.

Innovation Solution

A method and system where MC service servers coordinate to determine and grant priority requests for network resources, involving a first MC service server acting as a priority arbitrator to assess and manage priority requests from second MC service servers, providing notifications to affected servers and clients, ensuring efficient priority handling and notification across the network.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If priority requests are dynamically adjusted based on geographical location and user roles, then the quality of service for MC services is improved, but the complexity of priority management across different MC service platforms increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvequality of service for MC servicesVSAvoidcomplexity of priority management

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a dedicated priority management entity (first MC service server) that acts as an intermediary between MC service servers and network resources. This mediator receives priority requests from second MC service servers, determines whether to grant them based on predefined criteria, and notifies affected parties. This intermediary structure centralizes the complex priority management logic, improving service reliability while containing complexity within a specialized component rather than distributing it across all platforms.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent segments the priority management function into distinct components: (1) priority request generation by MC service servers, (2) priority determination by the first MC service server, and (3) notification distribution to affected servers and clients. This segmentation allows each component to focus on a specific task, improving overall system reliability while making the complex priority management process more manageable and maintainable through modular design.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Productivity

If centralized priority arbitration is implemented, then priority management efficiency is improved, but the device complexity increases due to additional coordination mechanisms

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepriority management efficiencyVSAvoidcoordination mechanism complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The first MC service server serves as a centralized intermediary that arbitrates all priority requests. It receives requests from second MC service servers, applies determination criteria (such as service type, user role, geographical location), and sends notifications to affected entities. This centralized arbitration improves priority management efficiency by providing a single point of control, while the complexity is contained within the arbitrator's logic rather than requiring complex coordination between multiple equal entities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms where the first MC service server notifies second MC service servers and other affected entities about priority determination results. This feedback loop ensures that all parties are informed of priority decisions, enabling them to adjust their behavior accordingly. The feedback mechanism improves efficiency by preventing conflicts and ensuring consistent priority handling, while the notification process is managed through standardized procedures that limit complexity growth.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Loss of information

If priority notifications are sent to all affected servers and clients, then information completeness is improved, but the network overhead and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinformation completeness of priority statusVSAvoidnotification processing time

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by sending priority notifications selectively to specific affected entities rather than universally to all network participants. The first MC service server determines which second MC service servers and clients need to be notified based on the nature of the priority request and the entities involved in the affected service. This targeted notification approach ensures that all relevant parties receive complete information while minimizing unnecessary network overhead and processing time for entities not affected by the priority change.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS11477798B2Priority of network resources in a network

Publication Date: 2022.10.18 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

AI summary

There is provided mechanisms for determining priority of use of network resources used by an MC service in a network. A method is performed by a first MC service server. The method comprises obtaining a priority request from a second MC service server for elevated priority of use of network 5 resources for a service provided by the second MC service server. The method comprises determining whether to grant, reject, or queue the priority request. The method comprises, when determined to grant the priority request, providing a first notification of the grant to the second MC service server and a second notification of the grant to at least one third MC service server.