Advanced MU-MIMO acknowledgement and PS flow

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Slide 1 doc.: IEEE /1092r0 Submission Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Incorporated September 2010 Slide 1 ACK Protocol and Backoff Procedure for MU-MIMO.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /0285r0 March 2013 Submission Resource Allocation Frame Format for RAW- based Medium Access Date: Authors: Chittabrata Ghosh,
Submission doc.: IEEE /1096r0 Sep 2015 John Son et al., WILUSSlide 1 Recovery Procedures in Cascading Sequences Date: Authors: NameAffiliationsAddressPhone .
Submission doc.: IEEE /0961r0 July 2016 Hanseul Hong, Yonsei UniversitySlide 1 Consideration on Multi-STA BlockAck Optimization Date:
Channel Width Selection Within TXOP
Uplink ACK and BA Multiplexing
Flow control for EDMG devices
Location Measurement Protocol for Unassociated STAs
MU BAR Frame Format Date: Authors: November 2015 Month Year
Multi-TID Aggregation for 11ay
Enhanced SLS BF flow for efficient AP-STA access in dense environment
Power Save Delivery for 11ay
MU-MIMO codebook based transmission flow in IEEE802.11ay
Flow control for EDMG devices
How to collect STAs’ Tx demands for UL MU
Protocol and frames for TDD link maintenance
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
Random Access RU Allocation in the Trigger Frame
Random Access RU Allocation in the Trigger Frame
SU-MIMO Type for Group Addressed Frames
Scheduling for mmWave Distribution Networks
Clarifications on WUR/PCR interactions
Frame Exchange Control for Uplink Multi-user transmission
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
Follow UP of Unifying Queue Size Report
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Asymmetric beamforming training procedure enhancements
Further considerations on WUR frame format
MU Beamforming for mmWave Distributed Network
Uplink ACK and BA Multiplexing
MAC Capabilities Info. in HE Capabilities IE
Scheduling for mmWave Distribution Networks
MU-MIMO channel access flow for 11ay
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
TWT SP initiation and termination and legacy PS
Enhanced SLS BF flow for efficient AP-STA access in dense environment
Further considerations on WUR frame format
SU-MIMO Type for Group Addressed Frames
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
MAC Clarifications Date: Authors: September 2016
Uplink ACK and BA Multiplexing
Fragmentation with A-MPDU
11BA Power Save Date: Authors: July 2017 Liwen Chu Marvell
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Random Access RU Allocation in the Trigger Frame
Regarding HE fragmentation
Random Access RU Allocation in the Trigger Frame
BlockAck Enhancement for Multicast Transmissions
Further discussion for WLAN Radar
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Further considerations on WUR frame format
Follow UP of Unifying Queue Size Report
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
MU-MIMO codebook based transmission flow in IEEE802.11ay
Clarifications on WUR/PCR interactions
6 GHz operation for 11ax follow up
Explicit Block Ack Request in DL MU PPDU
UL MU Random Access Analysis
“Near-far” self-classification capabilities of EDMG STAs
Multi-TID Aggregation for 11ay
Regarding HE fragmentation
Protocol and frames for TDD link maintenance
Channel Width Selection Within TXOP
WUR MAC and Wakeup Frame
Multiplexing of Acknowledgements for Multicast Transmission
Discussion on Rank Adaptation
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
WUR with conventional power save
Presentation transcript:

Advanced MU-MIMO acknowledgement and PS flow Authors: Name Affiliation Address Phone Email Ilya Bolotin Intel Turgeneva 30, Nizhny Novgorod, 603024, Russia +7 (831) 2969444 ilya.bolotin@intel.com Oren Kedem oren.kedem@intel.com Cheng Chen cheng.chen@intel.com Alexander Maltsev alexander.maltsev@intel.com Artyom Lomayev   artyom.lomayev@intel.com

Legacy MU acknowledgment procedure ISSUE 1: BAR/BA exchange causes large overhead increasing the duration of one MU cycle (MU PPDU transmission and its acknowledgement) and therefore significantly reducing throughput PSDU, bytes BAR/BA exchange overhead, % 64 bitmap BA 256 bitmap BA 512 Bitmap BA 1024 Bitmap BA 2048 Bitmap (25+256) 256 94.76 95.10 95.41 95.76 96.38 4096 93.92 94.31 94.66 95.07 95.78 65536 82.23 83.26 84.17 85.24 87.20

Legacy MU acknowledgment procedure To reduce the BAR/BA exchange overhead the following flow could be used (allowed in 11ac): BUT!!! adopted MU-MIMO power save does not allow such flow (see next slide)

Legacy MU-MIMO power save Each STA knows its specific order of BAR/BA exchange. The BAR/BA order shall be the same as the AIDs appear in the group description present in the EDMG Group ID Set element corresponding to this MU group. This ordered BAR/BA exchange sequence enables each STA to know when it should wake up to receive the corresponding BAR frame addressed to it. ISSUE 2: Such approach limits the MU-MIMO acknowledgement flow to only one case: when all STAs are requested for BA after each MU PPDU

Legacy MU-MIMO power save Example: PCP/AP elicits BA only from STA 1 MISSED (because STA2 in doze) STA 2 is not aware of the exact transmission start time of the next MU PPDU.

Explicitly scheduled BA. MU acknowledgment and PS flow To resolve both issues we propose the following MU-MIMO acknowledgement and PS flow: BAR frames are removed from acknowledgement flow in order to reduce overhead. STAs transmit their BA during time slots scheduled by PCP/AP for each STA PCP/AP schedules time slots for BA transmission for each STA considering knowledge about the BA type for each STA. AP informs each STA its BA Transmission Time (BATT) by including scheduling information into the same MU PPDU The scheduling information allows STA to wake up exactly for its BA transmission and MU PPDU reception performing power save in the most effective and accurate way

Explicitly scheduled BA. MU acknowledgment and PS flow Scheduling information is STA specific and should include: BATT Start offset which indicates the beginning of time slot provided by AP for STA to transmit its BA Next PPDU Start offset which indicates the moment when STA should begin listening AP. At this moment AP may either start transmitting the next MU PPDU in current sequence of MU-MIMO transmission or transmit BAR to STA in case if solicited BA was not received.

Explicitly scheduled BA. Scheduling signaling. MU-MIMO Block Ack scheduling information can be delivered from AP to STAs by a special control frame included in the A-MPDU for corresponding STA Frame Control Duration RA TA Block Ack Scheduling Information FCS Octets 2 6 3 4 BATT Start Offset Next PPDU Start offset EOF Reserved Bits 9 1 5 Subfields BATT Start Offset and Next PPDU Start offset indicate the corresponding values (defined previously) in microseconds. The EOF flag indicates that the data part of A-MPDU is over and after correct reception of this Control frame STA may stop receiving

Explicitly scheduled BA. Schedule signaling. The main drawback of this method is low robustness: the Schedule frame may be lost in aggregation. The straightforward solution is repetition of this frame in different parts of A-MPDU (such reliability increase is already used for Block Ack in 11ad, see Table 9-425). E.g., it can be repeated in the beginning and in the end of A-MPDU, or it can be repeated several times in the end of A-MPDU as a rough padding to align durations of A-MPDU for different MU-MIMO streams. Example of A-MPDU transmitted within EDMG MU PPDU PSDU, bytes Scheduling signaling overhead (two frames), % 256 0.19 4096 0.16 65536 0.05 Targeting 0.01 frame error rate we have 0.0001 probability that two Block Ack Schedule frames will not be received correctly

Ack policy Combination 01 in Ack Policy subfield of QoS Data frame is not used in 11ad We propose to use Ack policy = 01 for QoS Data frames transmitted in EDMG MU-MIMO to indicate that BA should be sent by STA in a scheduled time slot

Proposed vs. Legacy flow performance comparison Assumptions: Amount of data (PSDU) for all STAs in MU-MIMO is same AP transmits each MU-MIMO stream using MCS 12 (4620 Mbps) BAR and BA are transmitted using MCS 4 (1155 Mbps) STAs send BA of minimal length (25+8 bytes) Equivalent throughput gain of Proposed flow over Legacy flow PS gain of Proposed flow over Legacy flow The performance gains are lower for the cases when acknowledgement overhead is lower – small number of STAs in MU group and big size of data frames.

Proposed vs. Legacy flow performance comparison Assumptions: Amount of data (PSDU) for all STAs in MU-MIMO is same AP transmits each MU-MIMO stream using MCS 12 (4620 Mbps) BAR and BA are transmitted using MCS 4 (1155 Mbps) STAs send BA of maximal length (25+256 bytes) Equivalent throughput gain of Proposed flow over Legacy flow PS gain of Proposed flow over Legacy flow

Proposed vs. Legacy flow MAX throughput estimation Assumption: STAs send BA of minimal length (25+8 bytes) 8 STAs in MU-MIMO EDMG SC MCS20 (8662.5 Mbps) is used for all STAs in MU-MIMO CB=4 PSDU, bytes AP Throughput (Legacy flow), Gbps (Proposed flow)*, Gbps (Proposed flow+)*, Gbps 64 0.04 0.10 (+134%) 0.35 (+758%) 256 0.17 0.39 (+134%) 1.41 (+755%) 1024 0.66 1.54 (+133%) 5.57 (+744%) 4096 2.62 6.06 (+131%) 21.02 (+702%) 16384 10.20 22.74 (+123%) 68.49 (+572%) 65536 36.74 73.00 (+99%) 157.34 (+328%) *Proposed flow – all 8 STAs are requested for BA Proposed flow+ – only one STA is requested for BA (see Slide #3)

Straw poll Do you agree to include the text changes proposed in 11-17- 1691-00-00ay-Draft text for advanced MU-MIMO acknowledgement and PS flow to the spec draft? Yes No Abstain