## 4 Performance Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of Setup 1: Using FRER for Redundant Transmissions in the Same 5G Mid-Band System  
The results of Setup 1, using two mid-band connections and one core, are shown in Figure 10. The end-to-end latency of the individual UEs one and two are given in Figure 10a,b as a distribution over time. In Table 2, the performance results can be seen: UE1 with a mean latency of 6.39 ms and UE2 with 6.40 ms. The combined transmission after elimination on Switch 2 is shown in Figure 10c, with an average latency of 6.11 ms. By using FRER, the maximum latency for 99.99% of the values has dropped from 11.16 ms for UE1 and 10.95 for UE2 to 8.28 ms, meeting the use case requirements set to 10 ms for the 99.99 th percentile value. The reduction of the latency can be explained by observations made in Figure 10. First, the distribution of the latency values for the individual UEs is  
Figure 9: Setup 5: Redundant transmission via 5G mid-band and 5G mmW systems.  
much broader, and for the FRER-enabled pipeline, it is much more compact around the mean value. Furthermore, Figure 10a,b show outliers in the latency of up to 60 ms. These outliers can only be seen for the individual UE but not in the overall latency diagram. The use of replicated, parallel data streams smoothens the latency distribution and, therefore, the overall jitter of the communication. Larger spikes and outliers are eliminated.  
As a result of Setup 1, the use of FRER improves the reliability of 5G transmissions. An interesting side effect of the improved reliability is the reduction of latency. Since FRER always selects the fastest packet to be transmitted, a path affected by disturbances such as hybrid automated repeat request re-transmissions (HARQ reTx), scheduling and processing delays, or UE internal delays will not affect the overall transmission. Further, it can be seen that the impact of using FRER in the same network enables a reliable transmission suitable for the described use case.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Setup** & **Path 1** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Path 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Switch 2**} \\ \hline  & **99.99\%** & **Requirements** & **99.99\%** & **Requirements** & **99.99\%** & **Result** \\  & **Latency** & **Met** & **Latency** & **Met** & **Latency** & **Met** \\ \hline midband NSA + midband NSA & 11.16 ms & Not met & 10.95 ms & Not met & 8.28 ms & Requirements met \\ \hline midband NSA + midband SA & 11.46 ms & Not met & 18.78 ms & Not met & 8.43 ms & Requirements met \\ \hline midband SA + URLLC & 11.83 ms & Not met & 1.09 ms & Met & 1.09 ms & Requirements met \\ \hline midband NSA + mmW NSA & 12.30 ms & Not met & 6.31 ms & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Met with \\ spikes \\ \end{tabular} & 6.29 ms &
\begin{tabular}{c} Requirements \\ met with one \\ spike \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline midband SA + midband SA + mmW NSA & 11.64 ms & Not met & 27.49 ms & Not met & 9.24 ms & Requirements met \\ \hline midband SA + mmW NSA & 10.86 ms & Not met & 4.58 ms & Met & 4.57 ms & Requirements met \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Summary of the measurement results.  
Figure 10: Latency of the transmission. (**a**) Latency for packets sent by 5G UE1 (mid-band), (**b**) latency for packets sent by 5G UE2 (mid-band), and (**c**) latency of the first packet arriving at Switch 2.