Free Practice Questions for the Huawei HCIP-5G-RAN H35-581_V2.0 Exam (2026 Updated)

N310 is the correct answer because it defines the threshold number of consecutive out-of-synchronization indications received from lower protocol layers before the UE starts the applicable radio-link failure detection timer.

In 5G NR, Radio Link Monitoring (RLM) evaluates the quality of the serving radio connection using configured reference signals and associated detection thresholds.

The physical layer continuously evaluates the radio-link condition and reports in-sync or out-of-sync indications to the RRC layer when the applicable requirements are met.

When radio conditions deteriorate sufficiently, the physical layer provides out-of-sync indications.

If the UE receives N310 consecutive out-of-sync indications , the RRC layer starts timer T310, subject to the relevant procedural conditions.

The UE then monitors whether the serving radio link recovers before T310 expires.

If the UE receives N311 consecutive in-sync indications while T310 is running, the timer can be stopped, indicating recovery from the degraded radio-link condition.

If T310 expires without the required recovery, the UE performs radio-link failure handling, which may result in RRC connection reestablishment or transition to RRC_IDLE.

N312 is associated with a separate configured radio-link monitoring mechanism.

The critical distinction is that N310 specifies the consecutive indication threshold, whereas T310 represents the monitoring duration.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.331, Section 5.3.10, Radio Link Failure Related Actions , and Section 7.2, Counters .

Option A is incorrect because conventional NR PDSCH resource-allocation type 1 assigns a contiguous set of Resource Blocks (RBs), rather than supporting both contiguous and discontinuous frequency-domain allocation.

In 5G NR, the gNodeB allocates PDSCH frequency-domain resources through Downlink Control Information (DCI), using the applicable resource-allocation type configured for the active Bandwidth Part (BWP).

Resource-allocation type 0 uses a bitmap to indicate the Resource Block Groups (RBGs) allocated to a UE.

Each RBG consists of one or more consecutive RBs, with its nominal size determined by the BWP size and configured RBG-size parameter.

Because the bitmap can identify separate RBGs, type 0 can represent contiguous or noncontiguous groups of allocated resources.

Resource-allocation type 1 uses a Resource Indication Value (RIV) to identify the starting RB and the number of consecutively allocated RBs.

This provides RB-level allocation granularity but does not permit arbitrary discontinuous allocation within the conventional type 1 representation.

Therefore, option B correctly identifies type 1 as RB-level allocation, while options C and D correctly describe the characteristics of type 0.

Only option A incorrectly attributes discontinuous allocation capability to conventional type 1.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.214, Sections 5.1.2.2.1 and 5.1.2.2.2, Downlink Resource Allocation Types 0 and 1 .

Block Error Rate (BLER) is the intended answer because outer-loop power-control algorithms use error-performance feedback to adjust the target received signal quality required for reliable control-channel reception.

PUCCH carries essential Uplink Control Information (UCI), including HARQ acknowledgments, scheduling requests, and configured channel-state reports.

Errors in these transmissions can produce unnecessary retransmissions, incorrect scheduling decisions, and reduced radio-network efficiency.

The distinction between inner-loop and outer-loop power control is important.

Inner-loop power control adjusts transmission power according to the difference between measured signal quality, commonly expressed through SINR, and a configured target.

The gNodeB can issue Transmit Power Control (TPC) commands to modify the UE's PUCCH transmit power.

Outer-loop power control adjusts the target signal-quality requirement according to observed error performance. When reception reliability deteriorates, the target SINR can be increased to improve decoding probability. Conversely, consistently satisfactory error performance can permit a reduction in the target.

RSRP measures received reference-signal power, while power spectral density expresses signal or noise power per unit bandwidth. Neither directly represents the error-performance feedback used in the intended outer-loop mechanism.

Therefore, BLER is the expected examination answer, with implementation-specific qualifications.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.213, Section 7.2.1, PUCCH Transmit Power Control .

Technical warning / qualification: 3GPP specifies the PUCCH power-control signaling and calculations but does not mandate one universal BLER-based outer-loop algorithm. Huawei implementations may use BER or another error-performance measure depending on the radio technology and PUCCH configuration.

Option A is the expected answer because its slot configuration creates a relatively long interval between uplink transmission opportunities, increasing the scheduling-related latency experienced by applicable traffic.

In Time Division Duplex (TDD) operation, uplink and downlink transmissions share the same carrier-frequency resources but occur in different time-domain intervals.

The configured slot pattern determines the distribution of downlink slots, uplink slots, and special slots.

In the 8:2 configuration, the sequence DDDDDDDSUU contains seven consecutive downlink slots, followed by a special slot and two uplink slots.

For 30 kHz subcarrier spacing, a normal slot lasts 0.5 ms, producing a 5 ms configuration period.

Consequently, uplink packets arriving shortly after the available uplink opportunities may experience substantial waiting time before the next usable uplink slot.

The other configurations provide more frequent uplink opportunities, which generally reduces waiting time for uplink transmissions and selected feedback procedures.

Such delays can influence uplink scheduling requests, HARQ timing, and application-level responsiveness.

However, actual end-to-end latency also depends on traffic direction, processing delays, network congestion, retransmissions, and transport-network conditions.

Therefore, option A is the best answer when comparing the scheduling-related latency implications of the listed TDD patterns.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.213, Section 11.1, UE Procedures for Determining Slot Format ; TS 38.331, TDD-UL-DL-ConfigCommon and TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated .

Technical warning / qualification: The comparison assumes similar operating conditions and emphasizes uplink opportunity waiting time. The slot pattern alone does not establish a universally highest end-to-end latency for every traffic flow.

Who estimates it?

The UE estimates the path loss ( ), not the gNodeB.

Uplink vs. Downlink:

Because the UE does not know the uplink channel path loss directly prior to transmitting, it utilizes the channel reciprocity principle (or assumes average path loss symmetry).

The UE calculates the downlink path loss ( ) by taking the difference between the transmitted reference signal power broadcasted by the network (ss-PBCH-BlockPower or CSI-RS power) and the measured received power (higher-layer filtered RSRP):

Usage:

This estimated downlink path loss is then inserted into the open-loop power control formula to calculate the required uplink transmit power for PUSCH (including Msg3 during initial access).

Options C and D are correct because Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) can be conveyed through both the NAS Registration Request and the NR RRCSetupComplete message.

In 5G, NSSAI enables the network to identify the network slices requested or supported for a particular UE. Individual slices are represented by Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), comprising a Slice/Service Type (SST) and an optional Slice Differentiator (SD).

Option C — Registration Request: During 5G registration, the UE may include Requested NSSAI in its NAS Registration Request. This enables the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) to evaluate the requested slices against subscription information and network availability.

Option D — RRC Setup Complete: The NR RRCSetupComplete message includes an optional s-NSSAI-List information element. When supplied by the upper layers, this element can communicate S-NSSAI information during RRC connection establishment.

Options A and B are incorrect because RRCSetup and RRCSetupRequest do not contain the corresponding NSSAI information element.

The distinction is that the NAS Registration Request communicates slice information for core-network registration, whereas RRCSetupComplete can provide relevant slice assistance information through access-stratum signaling.

Therefore, C and D are the correct selections.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.331, Section 6.2.2, RRCSetupComplete Message ; TS 24.501, Sections 4.6.2.3 and 8.2.6, Registration Request and Requested NSSAI .

Interference margin is the expected answer because it represents an allowance for interference-related degradation rather than a direct propagation-loss component determined by the operating frequency band.

In 5G radio-network planning, the link budget estimates the maximum allowable propagation loss while maintaining the required received signal level and service performance.

The calculation considers parameters such as transmitter power, antenna gains, receiver sensitivity, feeder losses, penetration losses, fading margins, and interference assumptions.

Rain and snow fading is frequency dependent because precipitation-related electromagnetic attenuation varies with carrier frequency, particularly in higher-frequency operating bands.

Penetration loss also depends strongly on frequency and the characteristics of the materials through which the radio signal travels.

Concrete, glass, and other building materials can introduce substantially different attenuation at different operating frequencies.

Shadow fading margin accounts for slow variations in received signal power caused by environmental obstructions. Its statistical characteristics depend on the propagation scenario and can vary between frequency bands.

Interference margin , however, primarily accounts for degradation caused by neighboring transmissions, network loading, frequency reuse, antenna configurations, and resource-management behavior.

Although the actual interference environment can differ between frequency bands, interference margin is not an inherent frequency-dependent attenuation term.

Therefore, option D is the intended answer.

Official Reference: Huawei, 5G Wireless Network Planning Solution White Paper , Section 2.2.1, High-Precision 5G Propagation Model ; 3GPP TR 38.901, Study on Channel Model for Frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz .

Technical warning / qualification: Interference margin can indirectly depend on the operating band through deployment density, propagation, and spectrum conditions. The distinction concerns intrinsic propagation attenuation versus network-interference assumptions.

Options A and B are correct because both SCG reconfiguration failure and an RLC maximum-retransmission condition are defined failure causes that can be reported through the Secondary Cell Group (SCG) failure information procedure.

In NR Dual Connectivity, the SCG represents the secondary radio resources provided by the Secondary Node. When an SCG failure occurs, the UE may report the failure to the Master Node without immediately releasing the entire master connection.

Option A — SCG reconfiguration failure: This condition occurs when the UE cannot successfully apply an applicable RRC reconfiguration affecting the SCG. The standardized failure type is scg-reconfigFailure .

Option B — Maximum RLC retransmissions: When the SCG Radio Link Control (RLC) entity reaches its configured maximum retransmission threshold, the UE can initiate SCG failure reporting. The corresponding standardized failure type is rlc-MaxNumRetx .

Option C — T301 timeout: T301 is associated with RRC connection reestablishment. Its expiration is not defined as one of the listed SCG failure types.

Option D — SRB1 integrity check failure: The SCG failure procedure can report an SRB3 integrity failure, not the SRB1 condition specified in this option.

Therefore, A and B are the correct choices.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.331, Section 5.7.3, SCG Failure Information Procedure , and Section 6.2.2, SCGFailureInformation Message and FailureType .

The expected answer is 1,600 downlink grants per second, based on the numerical assumptions used in the supplied 5G peak-rate calculation.

In 5G NR, subcarrier spacing determines the slot duration. For a normal cyclic prefix, the number of slots per millisecond is:

N_slots/ms = 2^μ

For 30 kHz subcarrier spacing, μ=1. Therefore, the system provides two slots per millisecond, equivalent to 2,000 slots per second.

Under the simplified 4:1 downlink-to-uplink configuration, four out of every five slots are treated as downlink-capable transmission opportunities.

The expected calculation is:

2000 × 4/5 = 1600

The resulting 1,600 represents the nominal number of downlink-capable slot opportunities per second under this interpretation.

However, the common 4:1 TDD pattern is DDDSU, comprising three complete downlink slots, one special slot, and one uplink slot. The special slot contains downlink, flexible, and possibly uplink symbols, according to its configuration.

Consequently, counting the special slot as a complete downlink opportunity is a simplification. Actual PDSCH capacity and scheduled downlink grants depend on available control-channel monitoring occasions, symbol configuration, and scheduling restrictions.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.211, Section 4.3, Frame Structure ; TS 38.213, Section 11.1, Slot Configuration .

Technical warning / qualification: B is the intended examination answer. The exact number of usable downlink grants cannot be established solely from a 4:1 ratio without defining the special-slot structure and scheduling assumptions.

The Physical Cell Identity (PCI) is calculated using the primary and secondary synchronization identity components.

In 5G NR, the PCI identifies a radio cell at the physical layer and assists the UE with cell synchronization, reference-signal processing, and physical-channel operations.

According to 3GPP TS 38.211, the PCI is calculated using:

N_ID^cell = 3N_ID^(1) + N_ID^(2)

Here, N_ID^(1) represents the secondary synchronization identity component, while N_ID^(2) represents the primary synchronization identity component.

The question provides:

Primary synchronization code: N_ID^(2) = 2

Secondary synchronization code: N_ID^(1) = 1

Substituting these values:

PCI = 3(1) + 2 = 5

Therefore, option B is correct.

NR supports 1,008 physical cell identities, numbered from 0 to 1007. These identities are formed from 336 secondary synchronization identity groups and three primary synchronization identity values.

LTE uses the same mathematical PCI formula but supports 504 physical cell identities, corresponding to 168 groups of three identities.

This difference is important in physical-cell-identity planning because PCI collisions and unsuitable neighboring-cell identity configurations can affect synchronization, measurements, and mobility performance.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.211, Section 7.4.2.1, Physical-Layer Cell Identities ; TS 36.211, Section 6.11, LTE Synchronization Signals .

MCS index 27 is the expected answer because it represents the highest non-reserved spectral-efficiency entry in the conventional NR PDSCH MCS table supporting 256QAM.

The Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) determines the modulation order and target coding rate used for scheduled data transmission.

For 256QAM, the modulation order is Q_m=8, meaning eight coded bits are mapped to each modulation symbol.

According to 3GPP TS 38.214, Table 5.1.3.1-2, MCS index 27 uses modulation order 8 and a target coding-rate parameter of 948/1024.

Its spectral efficiency is approximately 7.4063 bits per resource element before applicable resource overheads.

This makes index 27 particularly relevant when evaluating maximum downlink throughput under favorable radio conditions.

However, an important distinction exists between enabling 256QAM and achieving maximum spectral efficiency.

MCS index 23 also uses 256QAM, with a target coding-rate parameter of 797/1024 and a lower spectral efficiency of approximately 6.2266.

Therefore, both indices 23 and 27 can represent 256QAM modulation, but index 27 provides the higher nominal spectral efficiency.

MCS index 28 is reserved in the referenced table, while index 32 is outside the five-bit MCS index range.

Consequently, B is correct for maximum peak-rate testing.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.214, Section 5.1.3.1, Table 5.1.3.1-2, MCS Index Table 2 for PDSCH .

Technical warning / qualification: Option D also represents 256QAM. The question is unambiguous only if peak-rate testing means selecting the highest non-reserved spectral-efficiency entry. The wording should explicitly state this condition.

Options B, C, and D are the intended answers because their counter names explicitly identify abnormal Secondary gNodeB (SgNB) release events and distinguish the associated failure causes.

In Non-Standalone (NSA) E-UTRA–NR Dual Connectivity, the SgNB provides NR secondary connectivity while the LTE eNodeB maintains the master connection.

Abnormal SgNB releases can occur because of radio-link failures, UE communication failures, transmission-network faults, or unsuccessful signaling procedures.

Option B — N.NsaDc.SgNB.AbnormRel.Radio.UeLost identifies abnormal release events associated with loss of UE communication at the radio layer.

This counter is relevant when investigating coverage deterioration, radio-link instability, or unexpected UE disappearance from the secondary connection.

Option C — N.NsaDc.SgNB.AbnormRel.NoReply identifies abnormal releases associated with missing expected responses during applicable procedures.

Option D — N.NsaDc.SgNB.AbnormRel.Trans identifies abnormal releases attributable to transmission-layer problems, such as faults affecting transport connectivity or associated signaling paths.

Option A — N.NsaDc.SgNB.Rel.Coverage identifies coverage-related SgNB releases, but its name does not classify those events as abnormal releases.

The key distinction is between general release counters and counters explicitly classified under abnormal-release causes.

Therefore, B, C, and D are the intended selections.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 37.340, E-UTRA and NR Multi-Connectivity , Secondary Node Release procedures; TS 28.552, 5G Performance Measurements .

Technical warning / qualification: The precise N.NsaDc counter names are Huawei-specific. Their interpretations are consistent with the updated question bank, but the official Huawei performance-counter dictionary has not been supplied or independently verified. The 3GPP references establish the procedure, not these exact counter definitions.

Options A, B, and C describe the principal eligibility and configuration requirements for initiating NR inter-RAT measurements in an E-UTRA–NR Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) deployment.

In NSA architecture, the LTE eNodeB operates as the Master Node and controls the initial measurement and secondary-node addition procedures.

Option A: The core network must permit the UE to use the applicable dual-connectivity service. Subscription restrictions and network indications can prevent the eNodeB from enabling NR secondary connectivity.

Option B: The UE must report capabilities compatible with EN-DC operation. The relevant capability framework was introduced in 3GPP Release 15, although the precise supported band combinations and EN-DC capability fields determine actual eligibility.

Option C: The LTE network must have the necessary dual-connectivity functionality enabled, together with appropriate neighboring NR frequency and measurement configurations. Incorrect frequency information can prevent the UE from measuring the intended NR cells.

Option D: The UMPTa is a Huawei hardware-board designation. The standardized B1 measurement configuration procedure does not require this specific board model. Hardware compatibility depends on the actual Huawei product and software release.

Therefore, A, B, and C represent the intended operational conditions, while D incorrectly introduces a specific hardware model as a universal requirement.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 37.340, E-UTRA and NR Multi-Connectivity , EN-DC Architecture and Secondary Node Addition; TS 36.331, Inter-RAT Measurement Configuration .

Technical warning / qualification: The precise Huawei NSA feature-switch and board-compatibility conditions require the relevant equipment-version documentation; 3GPP establishes the general signaling requirements.

Adjusting neighbor relationships is the intended incorrect coverage-optimization method because neighbor configuration primarily controls mobility procedures rather than the physical radio-signal conditions that determine coverage.

Weak coverage occurs when the received signal level or effective link budget is insufficient to maintain the required radio connection and service quality.

Coverage optimization generally focuses on antenna configuration, transmit power, receiver sensitivity, propagation conditions, and interference management.

A Tower Mounted Amplifier (TMA), where supported by the equipment architecture, can improve uplink receiver performance by reducing the effective receive-system noise figure and compensating for feeder-related losses.

Antenna optimization can improve the geographical distribution of radio energy by adjusting azimuth, electrical or mechanical downtilt, antenna height, and antenna gain.

Increasing gNodeB downlink transmit power may improve received reference-signal strength, provided regulatory limits, interference considerations, and equipment constraints are respected.

Neighbor relationships serve a different function.

They identify neighboring cells that may participate in measurements, handovers, and other mobility procedures.

Changing a neighbor relationship does not directly improve propagation loss, received signal strength, or the physical coverage footprint.

Although neighbor optimization can resolve mobility failures that appear to users as coverage problems, it cannot independently correct an RF link-budget deficiency.

Therefore, option A is correct.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.300, Overall Description of NR and NG-RAN , mobility-management principles; TS 38.133, Requirements for Support of Radio Resource Management . The specific RF-optimization distinction follows radio-planning principles rather than a vendor-mandated procedure.

The Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) is the correct answer because PMI is primarily reported by the UE as part of Channel State Information (CSI), rather than being transmitted as a conventional Downlink Control Information (DCI) field on the Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH).

In 5G NR, the PDCCH carries scheduling and control information from the gNodeB to the UE. DCI formats determine whether the signaling concerns uplink transmission, downlink transmission, or another supported control procedure.

For downlink scheduling, DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 can specify PDSCH resource assignments, including frequency-domain and time-domain resource allocation.

The DCI also contains a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) field. This identifies the modulation order and target coding rate associated with the scheduled PDSCH transmission.

For uplink scheduling, DCI formats 0_0 and 0_1 can provide PUSCH resource allocations and associated transmission parameters.

PMI serves a different purpose. Based on configured CSI-RS measurements, the UE determines a preferred precoding matrix and reports the associated PMI to the gNodeB.

This feedback is conveyed through applicable uplink reporting procedures using PUCCH or PUSCH.

Therefore, PMI is the only listed parameter that is not ordinarily carried as a PDCCH DCI field.

Official Reference: 3GPP TS 38.212, Section 7.3.1, DCI Formats ; TS 38.214, Section 5.2, Channel State Information Reporting .