How We Sized GE, 10GE, 40GE and 200GE Links for a Nationwide Mobile Transport Network

Published: August 21, 2026 | Last Technically Reviewed: August 21, 2026

Myanmar Telenor Nationwide Mobile Broadband Network Planning - Field Case Series, Part 3

Quick Answer

In the Myanmar Telenor mobile transport project, GE, 10GE, 40GE and 200GE were not assigned to network layers simply because those interface speeds were available. The planned capacity increased as traffic from geographically distributed radio sites was progressively combined toward the backbone. The project used approximately 1:3 traffic convergence from microwave to the access layer and another approximately 1:3 from access to aggregation, while no additional convergence was planned at the base-station-to-microwave and aggregation-to-backbone transitions. That calculation led to project-specific results of generally GE microwave uplinks, 10GE access transport, 40GE aggregation transport and 200GE backbone transport, with expansion interfaces reserved where traffic convergence occurred.

Why could GE be sufficient in one part of the network while another layer required 10GE, 40GE or even 200GE?

Because those links did not carry the same amount of traffic.

When we moved from individual radio sites toward the core, traffic from more downstream nodes was progressively combined onto fewer upstream paths. We therefore could not size every transport layer from the interface speed of one device below it. At each convergence point, the question became: how much downstream traffic will this upstream path need to carry after aggregation?

That distinction drove the capacity plan.

A Link Carries More Than the Traffic of the Device Directly Below It

At a simplified physical level, the transport hierarchy in this project can be represented as:

Radio Sites
    ↓
Microwave
    ↓
Data Access
    ↓
Aggregation
    ↓
Backbone
    ↓
Mobile Core

The original project used a layered L3 microwave, access, aggregation and backbone transport architecture, but this article is not about the service architecture or MPLS implementation. The important point here is how traffic accumulated as it moved upstream.

Near the edge, a link represented traffic from a relatively limited downstream scope.

Farther upstream, one transport path could represent traffic that had already been collected from multiple microwave paths and multiple access nodes.

This means that:

A 1GE-facing device does not automatically require a 1GE upstream design forever. Likewise, several downstream interfaces do not mean their nominal interface speeds should simply be added together without considering the project's traffic model.

The planning had to account for how traffic was actually intended to converge through the network hierarchy.

We Used Controlled Traffic Convergence

The project document records a specific convergence model:

• Base station Microwave: no traffic convergence
• Microwave Data Access: approximately 1:3 convergence
• Data Access Aggregation: approximately 1:3 convergence
• Aggregation Backbone: no further convergence at that transition

It also states that expansion interfaces were reserved at the locations where convergence occurred.

Those ratios are important because they explain why the link-capacity requirement increased from one layer to the next.

They must also be interpreted correctly.

The source does not provide the underlying per-base-station Mbps figures, utilization curves or traffic forecasts used in each intermediate calculation. We therefore should not reconstruct values that were not recorded.

What the source does preserve is the final convergence logic and the resulting transport-capacity classes.

That is enough to explain the engineering decision.

Why GE Was Enough at the Microwave Layer

At the radio-site edge, the project did not apply traffic convergence between the base-station equipment and the microwave equipment.

In this planning model, the microwave side therefore represented a relatively limited traffic scope compared with the upstream access and aggregation layers.

The resulting calculation was that microwave equipment generally required GE uplinks.

This does not mean that GE is universally sufficient for a 4G microwave link.

It means:

The original material does not give an exact average traffic load per radio site, peak Mbps figure or utilization percentage, so none should be added.

The capacity conclusion came from the project's planning model, not from a generic rule that "base stations use GE."

Why the Access Layer Moved to 10GE

The capacity requirement changed when traffic moved from microwave sites into the data-access layer.

Here, the project applied approximately 1:3 convergence. In other words, the access transport path represented traffic collected from multiple downstream microwave sources rather than only one edge connection.

As traffic scope increased, GE was no longer the capacity class selected for the transport network at this layer.

The planning result became:

Again, 10GE was not chosen simply because it was a faster interface technology.

It was the result of the amount of downstream traffic being combined at that stage of the hierarchy.

This distinction is important in capacity planning. If we had looked only at the speed of an individual downstream connection, we would have ignored the fact that the access-layer uplink was carrying traffic from several sources simultaneously.

Why Aggregation Reached 40GE

Traffic concentration continued one layer higher.

The project applied another approximately 1:3 convergence from the data-access layer toward aggregation.

By this point, an aggregation transport path represented traffic that had already passed through an earlier stage of consolidation.

That increased the planned bandwidth requirement again.

The resulting project value was:

The significance of 40GE here is not the interface technology itself. It is where that interface sits in the traffic hierarchy.

A transport link closer to the backbone has visibility into a much larger combined traffic domain than a link connecting an individual radio site.

The required capacity therefore increased with that aggregation scope.

No specific switch model or optical module needs to be introduced to explain that decision. Hardware selection came after the capacity requirement had been established.

Why the Backbone Reached 200GE

The backbone represented the largest traffic scope in this hierarchy.

By the time traffic reached that part of the network, it represented services collected from multiple downstream access and aggregation domains.

The project planning result was 200GE of backbone transport capacity.

That wording is intentional.

The historical source states that the backbone data-communication network was planned at 200GE. It does not specify in this passage whether that capacity was implemented through:

• one physical 200GE interface;
• multiple parallel Ethernet links;
• link aggregation;
• optical channels;
• or another implementation.

We therefore should not infer the physical implementation.

The supported statement is simply:

The engineering logic remained the same as at the previous layers: as the amount of downstream traffic represented by an upstream path increased, the required transport capacity increased with it.

We Also Planned for Expansion

Day-1 calculated capacity was not the only consideration.

The source explicitly states that expansion interfaces were reserved at traffic-convergence points.

That was important because the traffic model used for initial planning was not expected to remain static forever.

A transport design that exactly satisfies the initial calculation but provides no practical route for expansion can create a new bottleneck later.

The original document does not specify a 20%, 30%, 50% or other numerical headroom target, so no such percentage should be assigned retrospectively.

The supported conclusion is narrower:

That gave the network a way to grow without pretending that the initial calculated capacity was a permanent endpoint.

What This Project Taught Us

The capacity-planning principle from this case is straightforward:

The Myanmar Telenor project made that visible at nationwide scale.

Traffic moved through progressively broader transport domains, and the planned capacity increased accordingly:

→ GE-scale microwave transport
→ aggregated access traffic
→ 10GE access transport
→ further aggregation
→ 40GE aggregation transport
→ broader backbone traffic
→ 200GE planned backbone capacity

Those numbers belonged to this project. The method is what transfers.

Even in smaller networks, a 48-port access switch does not automatically need a 48 Gbps uplink, just as a 1GE AP port does not by itself determine the correct floor or building uplink capacity.

The answer depends on actual concurrent traffic, aggregation behavior, application demand, growth requirements and the failure/redundancy design.

Understand the traffic being combined first. Then choose the uplink capacity.

Go Beyond the Capacity Calculation

This article isolates only the transport-capacity planning decision from the wider Myanmar Telenor project.

The complete project also covered RAN site planning, physical transport mapping, network architecture, reliability, QoS, security and network management. Earlier parts of this case series explain how radio locations were evaluated against existing infrastructure and how layered physical-resource maps were used to build the transport topology.

For the broader engineering context, you can download the full Myanmar Telenor Nationwide Mobile Broadband planning white paper for free.

From Carrier Capacity Planning to Business Network Uplinks

The traffic volumes and technologies are completely different between a nationwide mobile network and a hotel, café, retail or SMB network. The GE/10GE/40GE/200GE values from this historical carrier project should not be copied into an enterprise design.

The underlying capacity question, however, is similar.

In a business network:

APs / PCs / POS / CCTV / Phones
             ↓
          PoE Access
             ↓
         Aggregation
             ↓
          Firewall
             ↓
      Internet / Cloud

traffic from multiple downstream systems can accumulate on the same upstream path.

Whether 1GE is sufficient, Multi-Gig is required, or a 10GE or higher uplink is appropriate should therefore be evaluated from peak clients, AP traffic, CCTV traffic, POS and wired endpoints, application demand and expected growth-not just switch port count or an AP's theoretical PHY rate.

When several access switches or high-density wireless zones feed the same upstream path, properly sized enterprise aggregation switches can provide the required uplink capacity and expansion options.

Our high-traffic business network solutions workflow applies this project-specific approach to commercial networks. A current BOM, topology, device count or existing switch/AP list can be reviewed for uplink capacity, PoE, compatibility and equipment selection.

Read the Complete Series

Part 1 - How We Planned 4G Radio Sites Without Building Every Site From Scratch

Part 2 - How We Used Layered Maps to Plan a Nationwide 4G Transport Network

Part 3 - How We Sized GE, 10GE, 40GE and 200GE Links for a Nationwide Mobile Transport Network

Full Project - Myanmar Telenor Nationwide Mobile Broadband Network Planning White Paper