NTN UE Location Verification Using Dual Positioning Estimates
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional terrestrial network positioning verification mechanisms are not applicable to Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) systems due to their large coverage areas, leading to unreliability and lack of availability of UE location information, and existing solutions do not adequately address the need for accurate and reliable UE location verification in NTN networks.
Innovation Solution
The proposed solutions enhance network-based verification procedures by implementing RAT-dependent positioning methods, including enhanced location reporting configurations and triggers initiated by the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) to verify UE location using Location Management Function (LMF) procedures, supporting various NTN multi-connectivity scenarios.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If conventional terrestrial network positioning verification mechanisms are used, then the system is simple and familiar, but the location verification reliability is poor and unavailable in NTN systems due to large coverage areas
Solution Approach 1:
The positioning verification mechanism is segmented into two distinct parts: RAT-independent positioning (using GNSS or other non-3GPP methods) and RAT-dependent positioning (using 3GPP network-based methods). This segmentation allows each method to operate independently and be verified separately, improving reliability in NTN systems where conventional single-method verification fails due to large coverage areas.
Solution Approach 2:
The AMF (Access and Mobility Management Function) acts as an intermediary that coordinates between RAT-independent and RAT-dependent positioning methods. The AMF triggers both positioning types and performs verification by comparing results, serving as a mediator that enables reliable location verification in NTN systems without requiring complete redesign of existing mechanisms.
2Measurement precision
If RAT-independent positioning methods are used, then location information can be obtained, but the accuracy and reliability are insufficient without verification
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements feedback by comparing the RAT-independent location estimate with the RAT-dependent location estimate. The AMF verifies whether the two location information results match within acceptable thresholds, providing feedback that confirms or refutes the accuracy of the positioning data, thereby improving reliability.
Solution Approach 2:
The system performs preliminary positioning using RAT-independent methods (such as GNSS) to obtain an initial location estimate before triggering RAT-dependent positioning for verification. This preliminary action allows the system to have a reference location to compare against, enabling verification of accuracy without waiting for the slower network-based positioning to complete first.
3Reliability
If multiple positioning methods are implemented for verification, then location verification reliability improves, but signaling overhead increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements partial verification by comparing location estimates only when necessary - specifically when the UE is in NTN coverage or when location verification is explicitly required by the network. The AMF selectively triggers RAT-dependent positioning and verification procedures rather than continuously, reducing signaling overhead while maintaining reliability where needed.
Solution Approach 2:
The AMF is designed with multi-functionality, handling both RAT-independent and RAT-dependent positioning coordination, verification, and result comparison within a single network function. This universal approach consolidates signaling paths and reduces overall signaling overhead compared to having separate dedicated functions for each positioning type.
4Reliability
If NTN-specific positioning verification is implemented, then location verification becomes reliable in large coverage areas, but the system complexity increases compared to terrestrial networks
Solution Approach 1:
The positioning verification system is designed with universality to handle both terrestrial and NTN scenarios. The AMF can selectively apply RAT-independent and RAT-dependent positioning methods based on the network type, making the system adaptable to different environments while maintaining reliable verification in NTN through the same core mechanism.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically adapts its positioning verification approach based on the operational context. In NTN scenarios, it activates both RAT-independent and RAT-dependent positioning with verification enabled. In conventional terrestrial scenarios, it can use traditional methods. This dynamic behavior maintains versatility across different network types while ensuring NTN-specific reliability requirements are met.
Data Source
AI summary
Various aspects of the present disclosure relate to NTN-based UE location verification. A network entity is configured to transmit a request for location information associated with a user equipment (UE), receive, from a base station, a first location estimate of the UE, receive, from a second network entity, a second location estimate of the UE, and perform location verification based at least in part on the first location estimate of the UE and the second location estimate of the UE.