## 7 Mobile Networks Support for the Sectors in Focus  
In order to confirm the necessary support of a PLMN for the specific AFBW use cases, two primary conditions have to be met:  
* _Availability of the relevant service class_--each use case should be implementable using one of the 3 GPP service classes, i.e., Slice/Service Type (SST) [117], coupled with its general characteristics and the use-case specifics;  
Figure 1: Spectrum allocation for 5G [143, 144] and foreseen 6G bands [142, 145]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Key Performance Indicator (KPI)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mobile Network**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **4G** & **5G** & **6G** \\ \hline Peak data rate [Gbps] & 1 & 20 & 1000 \\ User-experienced data rate [Mbps] & 10 & 100 & 1000 \\ Spectrum efficiency [bps/Hz] & 6 & 20 & 100 \\ Mobility [kmh] & 350 & 500 & 1000 \\ Latency [ms] & 10 & 1 & 0.1 \\ Connection density [devices/km\({}^{2}\)] & \(10^{5}\) & \(10^{6}\) & \(10^{7}\) \\ Area traffic capacity [Mbps/m\({}^{2}\)] & 0.1 & 10 & 1000 \\ Network energy efficiency & 1\(\times\) & 100\(\times\) & 200\(\times\) \\ Reliability & – & \(10^{-5}\) & \(10^{-7}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of performance peaks offered by 4–6G mobile networks (based on [138, 90, 139, 140]). * _UP performance_--it has to be ensured that the QoS requirements of the use case can be met by the UP entities. The availability of a 5 QI fulfilling the use-case requirements confirms the UP support. Therefore, to evaluate the network support for the AFBW use cases, the above-mentioned approach is followed. First, the mapping of UC1-UC14 to the relevant 3 GPP SST was performed based on the requirements identified in Section 4. The results of the assignment are presented in Table 4.  
The five SST classes defined by the 3 GPP cover all of the identified AFBW use cases. Nonetheless, the implemented Network Slice Instances (NSIs) have to follow the specific QoS constraints dictated by each use case regarding UP transmission, such as traffic priority, (non-)guaranteed data rate, packet error rate, delay budget, etc., with regard to the tenants' demands or adopted UP architectures. An example allocation of 5 QI is presented in Table 5.  
The relevant 5 QI can be assigned to almost all of the identified use cases, except for UC13, due to the required latency of 2 ms (the lowest supported delay is equal to 5 ms). However, such extremely challenging delay limits may not be required in every case so the QoS targets should be evaluated individually. For the direct Device to Device (D2D) support in UC12, the appropriate PC5 5 QI (PQI) can be matched [146]. The lack of an extremely high data rate and very low latency class can potentially limit the efficient implementation  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{3-13}
**SST** & \multirow{3}{*}{\(\begin{bmatrix}\text  
of use cases that incorporate promising AI-based operations (e.g., federated learning, which requires the transfer of AI models among several system agents). Nonetheless, 6 GS is expected to introduce the separate slice category of MBRLLC, which should be accompanied by the relevant UP QoS profiles. In addition, it has to be emphasized that MNOs can define their own 5 QI values with the QoS requirements of their choice [117]. However, the sharing of 5 QI values among MNOs is not obligatory. As a consequence, with custom-defined 5 QIs, the support for roaming services can be limited or non-existent, which can be an obstacle for some AFBW use cases (e.g., monitoring or tracking of endangered animal species). In terms of communication performance, 5 GS can theoretically fulfil the vast majority of requirements of the AFBW sectors.