Presentation on theme: "Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 1 Proposal for the 5 criteria for the 802.11 HT SG."— Presentation transcript:
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 1 Proposal for the 5 criteria for the HT SG
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 2 What should we do? Intention: Increased Throughput Up to 2x improvement Increased MAC efficiency MeansEnds Higher PHY rate 5x improvement was presented Higher PHY rate and improved MAC Up to 10x
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 3 What should we remember ? Its a higher throughput WLAN: interoperability with existing a must (differentiate from ) Compare performance (throughput) at same range to balance user experience with installation considerations Scalability in cost and performance: Pay more to get more Improvements should exist for ALL users, including current equipment used (Broad market…) Beware of the bleeding edge of technology. Revolution is not the only way to effect a radical change!
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 4 1. Broad Market Potential A) Broad sets of applicability Large file transfer, home multimedia networks, video download or streaming and videoconferencing are but examples of applications in need of high throughput solutions. Today, cumbersome wired connections are usually used. At best, a wireless link poorly performs these tasks. The proposed standard is developed for these applications, and others. B) Multiple vendors, numerous users The HT standard will be supported by the same vendor base and end users as the existing standard. The membership supporting this PAR is in itself a strong indication of that: A broad range of wireless industry leaders ranging from silicon vendors to system integrator are included. C) Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations) Baseband processing as well as RF fronts are anticipated to change. The cost to achieve higher throughput depends on customer preference: greater throughput increases would cost more.
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 5 2. Compatibility Changes to the MAC shall be introduced in a way that will conform to Architecture, Management and Internetworking documents: 802.1D, 802.1Q and relevant parts of 802.1f. Any variances in conformance, if any emerge, would be thoroughly disclosed and reviewed by 802.
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 6 3. Distinct identity A) Substantially different from other 802 projects The throughputs provided will be significantly higher than any provided by other standards, while offering performance improvement even using existing standard based equipment. No other 802 standard is interoperable with existing standards. B) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem) The PAR will define one higher throughput standard that is scalable in performance and interoperable with existing standards. C) Easy for document reader to select the relevant specification This will be a separately labeled specification
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 7 4. Technical feasibility A) demonstrated system feasibility Several methods of increasing throughput up to 10x were presented, all using established technologies. B) Proven technology, reasonable testing Candidate technologies are such that have been shown feasible using existing ASIC and RF technologies and tested to ensure actual benefits conform to theory. C) Confidence in reliability Analysis of existing products and proposals presented as candidates provide confidence in the reliability of proposed solutions. This data was partially presented in past meetings and the papers are available for review.
doc.: IEEE /661r0 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 8 5. Economic feasibility A) Known cost factors, reliable data The fundamental architecture of the candidate approaches is well understood. The process off adding signal processing capabilities, improving MAC algorithms or changing PHY functionality are well understood. B) Reasonable cost for performance The proposed standard would scale in performance and cost so that cost-performance trade-off choices are possible and are subject to user preferences. C) Consideration of installation costs Installation costs will change but in a controlled manner, as upgrades to higher throughput could be performed selectively, only were demand for higher throughput exists.