1. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Slide 1 Fast session transfer use cases Authors: Date: 2010-01-20

2. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Goal of the presentation In [1], we presented several use cases for fast session transfer in TGad, mainly focused on coverage issues In this presentation, we introduce additional use cases The objective is to identify the requirements on fast session transfer, especially the importance to define signaling frames in TGad and TGac Assumptions: –AP and relays: concurrent dual band (multiple interface) –STAs either concurrent dual band or with only one band active at a given time (single interface)

3. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Several Fast Session Transfer cases Fast Session transfer from 60 GHz to 5 GHz or 2.4 GHz  From 11ad to 802.11a/b/g/n/ac  Roaming solutions: 11r Fast Session Transfer from 5 GHz to 60 GHz  From legacy 2.4 and 5GHz to 11ad, no exchange of messages between AP and STAs to control the switch. Only STAs can initiate a switch.  From TGac to TGad, specific mechanism could be proposed and could be very efficient (faster and with switches initiated by either STAs or APs) Fast Session Transfer in both way  Between 11a/b/g/n and ad: -only STA initiate the switch -fastness issues  Between 11ac and 11ad: -Could be initiated by both AP and STA -Could be fast enough

4. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Fastness requirements For video applications: –1080p60 => frame every 16,6 ms For VoIP applications: –Maximum acceptable BSS transfer for VoIP roaming is 50ms For gaming applications: –Maximum acceptable latency for some online video game is less than 100ms –But games are now using HD video and then constraints are similar to video applications For distributed storage or contents sharing –Any contents in the home network could be streamed and used from any devices –Same constraints than for video and game applications  Session transfer should not exceed 5 to 10 ms

5. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 AP Setop box WiFi 60GHz ( 1 Gbps) Use case 1: Fall back to 60GHz in case of 5GHz backhaul saturation Media server FTTH WiFi 5GHz ( 500 Mbps)

6. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 AP Setop box WiFi 60GHz ( 1 Gbps) Use case 2: Switch from 60 GHz to 5/2.4 GHz in case of link issue at 60 GHz Media server FTTH WiFi 5GHz ( 500 Mbps)

7. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Use case 1&2: Fall back to 60GHz in case of 5GHz backhaul saturation Load balancing between stations (one band transmitting at a given time) –AP-STB either in 5GHz or in 60GHz (one at a time) –Session transfer in case of saturation of 5GHz –Faster than 11r solutions (50ms) Load balancing between streams (concurrent dual band) –Multiple HD flows between AP and STB either in 5GHz or in 60GHz –Session transfer of some HD flows in case of saturation of 5GHz or at 60GHz

8. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 AP Setop box WiFi 60GHz ( 1 Gbps) Use case 3: Backhaul 5GHz, in-room 60GHz Media server FTTH WiFi 5GHz ( 500 Mbps) 60 GHz PNC Relay or Light AP

9. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 AP Setop box WiFi 60GHz ( 1 Gbps) Use case 4: Backhaul 5GHz, in-room 60GHz Media server FTTH WiFi 5GHz ( 500 Mbps)

10. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Use case 3&4: Backhaul 5GHz, in-room 60GHz In room 60 GHz improves the link reliability and the link robustness over interferences Fast session transfer between backhaul and in-room 60GHz –Single-interface or multi-interface devices –Transfer faster than 11r –Improvements also if Backhaul 5GHz, in-room 5GHz –Replacement of the PNC by a local or light AP simplifies the management and reduce interference (Low power transmission for 5 GHz in room) –Load-balancing  Such a use case is feasible with fast session transfer (5->60, 60->5)

11. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 Conclusions Goal of the fast session transfer –Solves coverage issues –Provides solutions to saturation issues: load balancing Constraints on fast session transfer –Faster than 11r –Preference for only one band transmitting at a given time in STA –Initiated by either APs or STAs –For switches of band while keeping the same transmitter and receiver –For a BSS roaming with a switch of band (from an AP to a relay for example)  Such a fast session transfer necessarly involves TGac and TGad

12. doc.:IEEE 802.11-10/0134r0 Submission Laurent Cariou January 18, 2010 References [1] Cariou, L. and Benko, J., 5-60 GHz use cases, TGad, IEEE 802.11-09/0835r0, July 2009 Slide 12