Presentation on theme: "IEEE 802.15.2 DRAFT RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Clause 14: Collaborative Coexistence Mechanism – IEEE 802.11 and 802.15.1 Steve Shellhammer (Symbol Technologies)"— Presentation transcript:
IEEE 802.15.2 DRAFT RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Clause 14: Collaborative Coexistence Mechanism – IEEE 802.11 and 802.15.1 Steve Shellhammer (Symbol Technologies) Jim Lansford, Adrian P Stephens (Mobilian Corporation)
Introduction (1/5) 4 Task Groups TG1: WPAN/Bluetooth TG2: Coexistence TG3: WPAN High Rate TG4: WPAN Low Rate 1 Public Committee
Introduction (2/5) 802.15.2 Scope To develop a recommended practice for an IEEE 802.15 Wireless Personal Area network that coexists with other selected wireless devices operating in unlicensed frequency bands
Introduction (3/5) Two Categories: Collaborative Mechanism (Collocated) To be defined as a coexistence mechanism where WPAN and WLAN exchange information between one another to minimize mutual interference Non-Collaborative Mechanism No exchange of information is used between two wireless
Collaborative Mechanism (1/14) By sharing information between collocated 802.11 and 802.15.1 stacks and locally controlling transmissions to avoid interference No new on-air signaling is required Be interoperable with devices that do not include it
Collaborative Mechanism (2/14) Overall Structure: AWMA Control
Collaborative Mechanism (3/14) AWMA Control Entity 802.11 AP and 802.15 master are collocated MEHTA Control Entity 802.11 STAs and 802.15 slaves are collocated
Collaborative Mechanism (4/14) Alternating Wireless Medium Access Feature: 802.15 master and 802.11 AP should collocated in the same physical unit 802.11 STAs are synchronized by AP 802.11 AP should send a physical synchronization signal to 802.15 master WPAN slavers s ACL data transmission is controlled by 802.15 master Limitation: Could not support SCO link
Collaborative Mechanism (11/14) Access Mechanism Effect of Tx Confirm (status=denied) DCFThe denied result appears to be a transient carrier-sense condition that requires a DIFS time to expire before a subsequent transmit request can be made. The denied result has no effect on the contention window (CW) or retry variables because no transmission has occurred. (But its will aggregate collision…) PCF (as CF-pollable STA) No transmission from the STA occurs, and the AP can resume transmission after a PIFS. (But its will cause wasting…) PCF as PCNo transmission from the AP occurs, and the AP can resume transmission after a PIFS.
Collaborative Mechanism (13/14) Recommended Priority Comparison An 802.11 ACK MPDU should have a higher priority than all 802.15.1 packets An 802.15.1 SCO packet should have a higher priority than 802.11 DATA MPDUs. Other priority comparisons are a implementation-specific
Collaborative Mechanism (14/14) Maintaining QoS A device can optionally monitor QoS by defining metrics (such as PER and delay) Maintaining SCO QoS An implementation can optionally attempt to maintain SCO QoS so as not to exceed some level of SCO packet loss by monitoring the SCO PER and comparing with a threshold. The priority of the SCO packet is increased when the SCO PER is above the threshold.
Simulation Result (4) Introduction Collaborative Mechanism (MAC Layer Solution) Simulation Result Conclusion Reference
Conference Room Usage (2/4) Many stations, each with independent piconets Bluetooth speakerphone As before, aggregate throughput is shared among all users Back to Single User Scenario Conference Room Scenario
Office Usage Model (3/4) Cluster of users in cubicles, each of which has an independent piconet Throughput is aggregate throughput measured from Access Point Back to Single User Scenario Office Scenario
Individual User (4/4) BT headset operating from same laptop as Wi- Fi station Individual Scenario
Conclusion The Combination of two proposal should revise to be more meaningful There might be some research topic address to the coexistence issue in the 802.11 point of view The QoS mechanism under the coexistence condition might be a discussible issue as well.