## 5 Performance Evaluation of MEC B5G Cellular Networks
### Result of Field Trial  
The basic throughput performance of Sub6 and mmWave was measured through the NSA configuration. The measurement results in E2E were approximately 0.9 Gbps for Sub6 and 1.6 Gbps for mmWave under the same 4G coverage in Table 3. This result includes throughput on the 4G side and is based on RF level, which depends on the development status of RAN software. It should be noted that the throughput in this measurement could not be the maximum performance. Meanwhile, in order to highlight the benefit of MEC, which supports stable communication compared to the internet, we executed the throughput performance from Ookla speedtest [71], which works in San Francisco, United State, via mmW from UE. As shown in Table 3, the performance in MEC via mmW is higher than on the internet. Hence, the performance of MEC is not only more stable, it is higher than the internet.  
As for the latency performance, one packet of 56-bit data was transmitted via 5G; thus, it does not occupy the RB and compares to throughput, allowing a quantitative evaluation to be performed. Figure 12 shows the latency result between MEC and the internet. For the internet servers, the comparison of MEC was conducted using officially prepared ping servers in Hokkaido, Japan [72] and San Francisco, United States. For the internet, the former was executed by ping from UE with an IPv4 address in a Hokkaido ping server, while the latter was executed via Ookla speedtest [71] in UE.  
In this figure, Internet (1) refers to the Hokkaido Ping server (ping-hokkaido.sinet.ad.jp) and Internet (2) to the San Francisco, United States server. These results show the average performance of ten measurement trials in a 100 s period at UE. From the figure, it can be  
Figure 11: Edge Platform.  
Figure 12: Latency comparison of MEC and internet.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**w/ MEC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**w/o MEC**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Sub6 n77** & **mmW n257** & **Internet** \\ \hline Throughput [Gbps] & 0.9 & 1.6 & 0.9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Throughput performance in PoC Field employing MEC.  
seen that the average latency of MEC via Sub6/mmW is approximately 33 ms, which is an improvement of about 20 ms compared to Internet (1). In addition, it shows that the improvement in latency depends on the server's location on the internet based on physical distance. Based on the above results, we can estimate that the latency between the RU and the CU was about 5 ms when installed on the near side of the base station, meaning that the latency can be reduced to about 5 ms to 15 ms. These results were implemented assuming a Private/Local Operator as an MEC that partially verifies the designed MEC/Cloud Orchestrator. As a result, the application was correctly deployed and implemented in E2E, and the communication stability and delay were more stable and lower than in the case of the internet cloud. In other words, the throughput in MEC is more stable than without MEC, because the distance of the E2E network is shortened and the network's condition becomes more stable as there are fewer in-between network devices.