Doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0567r0 Submission Slide 1Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO Analysis and OBSS Simulation Results Date: 2010-05-15 Authors:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /272a Submission June 2001 S. Choi, Philips Research Slide 1 Problems with IEEE (e) NAV Operation and ONAV Proposal Javier del.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /037 Submission January 2001 Khaled Turki et. al,Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF Khaled.
Doc.: IEEE /0338r1 Submission March 2012 Hung-Yu Wei, National Taiwan UniversitySlide 1 DeepSleep: Power Saving Mode to Support a Large Number.
Legacy Coexistence – A Better Way?
Haiguang Wang, Jaya Shankar, Zhongding Lei
Doc.: IEEE /0410r2 Submission March 2011 Slide 1 Data Transmission Protection on the IEEE ac MU-MIMO Downlink Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /214r0 Submission March 2002 Wentink, IntersilSlide 1 A simpler and better EDCF Menzo Wentink Ron Brockmann Maarten Hoeben Intersil.
Doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 A More Efficient Protection Mechanism Terry Cole AMD Fellow +1.
Protocol for SU and MU Sounding Feedback
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/0802r0 Consideration on UL MU transmission Date: Slide 1Jinyoung Chun et. al, LG Electronics July 2014 Authors:
IEEE CSMA/CA DCF CSE 6590 Fall /7/20141.
Doc.: IEEE /0627r00 Submission Yuichi Morioka, Sony Corporation Date: Why we need Length Field in VHT SIG May 2010 Slide 1 Authors:
Doc.:IEEE /223r1 Submission March 2002 J. del Prado and S. Choi, Philips Slide 1 CC/RR Performance Evaluation - Revisited Javier del Prado and.
Doc.: IEEE /080r1 Submission January 2001 Jie Liang, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 Jie Liang Texas Instruments Incorporated TI Blvd. Dallas,
Increased Network Throughput with Channel Width Related CCA and Rules
Doc.: IEEE /1355r2 11ah Submission Date: Authors: Nov 2012 James Wang, MediaTek Slide 1.
GroupID Concept for Downlink MU-MIMO Transmission
Doc.: IEEE /0696r2 SubmissionLiwen Chu Etc.Slide 1 Slot-based Power Save without PS-Poll Date: Authors: Date: July, 2012.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0859r0 July 2014 Hakan Persson, Ericsson ABSlide 1 Proposing a Stadium Scenario Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0645r5 SubmissionLiwen Chu Etc.Slide 1 Beamforming in IBSS, Mesh BSS, AP as Beamformee Date: Authors: Date: May 2011.
Doc.: IEEE /0839r0 Submission Slide 1S. Abraham, Qualcomm Inc. July 2010 DL MU-MIMO performance with QoS traffic and OBSS.
Doc.: IEEE /0798r1 Submission July 2008 L. Chu Etc.Slide 1 HT Features in Mesh Network Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0798r3 Submission September 2008 L. Chu Etc.Slide 1 HT Features in Mesh Network Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /630r1a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research November 2001 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
Doc.:IEEE /321r0 Submission May 2002 Y. Liu, et al Slide 1 CC/RR Performance Evaluation Yonghe Liu, Jin-meng Ho, Matthew B. Shoemake, Jie Liang.
Interference Cancellation for Downlink MU-MIMO
Submission March 2012 doc.: IEEE Slide 1 SINR and Inter-STA Interference Indication Feedback in DL MU-MIMO Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE / Submission September 2010 James Wang, MediaTekSlide 1 PSMP-Based MU-MIMO Communications Date: 2010, September 14 Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /1409r0 November 2013 Adriana Flores, Rice UniversitySlide 1 Dual Wi-Fi: Dual Channel Wi-Fi for Congested WLANs with Asymmetric.
Doc.:IEEE /0439r0 March 2012 Switching between DCF and PP-MAC Date: Slide 1 Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0608r2 Submission May 2012 Shoukang Zheng et. al, I2R, SingaporeSlide 1 Low-Power PS-Poll Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-12/1329r0 PS-Poll for Downlink Bufferable Units Date: Slide 1Eric Wong, Broadcom November 2012 Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1325r0 Submission Nov PS-Poll TXOP Date: Authors: David Xun Yang, Huawei, et. al.Slide 1.
PS-Poll TXOP Using RTS/CTS Protection
Doc.: IEEE /0324r0 Submission Slide 1Michelle Gong, Intel March 2010 DL MU MIMO Error Handling and Simulation Results Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /630r4a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research January 2002 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
Doc.: IEEE /0517r0 May 2013 Submission Slide 1 Authors: Combining Process in Virtual CS Mechanism for ah Date: Lv kaiying, ZTE.
Doc.: IEEE /0782r0 Submission July 2010 Daewon Lee, LG ElectronicsSlide 1 STA MU-MIMO Group Management Signaling Design Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1278r0 Submission BSS load balancing for MU-MIMO Date: Authors: Nov 2010 Slide 1Daewon Lee, LG Electronics.
Doc.: IEEE /0783r0 Submission July 2010 Daewon Lee, LG ElectronicsSlide 1 MU-MIMO support for BSS load balancing Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1234r0 Submission November 2009 Sameer Vermani, QualcommSlide 1 Interference Cancellation for Downlink MU-MIMO Date: Authors:
GroupID Concept for Downlink MU-MIMO Transmission
Doc.: IEEE /1123r0 Submission September 2010 Zhu/Kim et al 1 Date: Authors: [TXOP Sharing for DL MU-MIMO Support]
Doc.: IEEE /1244r1 Submission Nov.2010 Sun Bo, ZTE CorpSlide 1 Authors: Transmission Mechanism in MU-MIMO Date:
Slide 1 doc.: IEEE /1092r0 Submission Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Incorporated September 2010 Slide 1 ACK Protocol and Backoff Procedure for MU-MIMO.
Doc.: IEEE /0606r1 Submission Uplink Channel Access Date: Authors: May 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0148r0 Nokia Internal Use Only January 2012 Chittabrata Ghosh, Nokia Slide 1 Date: Authors: Uplink Throughput.
Submission doc.: IEEE /1186r2 September 2014 Pengfei Xia, Interdigital CommunicationsSlide 1 Comparisons of Simultaneous Downlink Transmissions.
Doc.: IEEE /0044r0 Submission Proposed Changes to Simulation Scenario Date: 2015/01/12 Takeshi Itagaki, Sony CorporationSlide 1 Authors: January.
Discussion on OFDMA in HEW
Doc.: IEEE /1190r2 September 2014 Submission Kaiying Lv (ZTE) Frame Exchange Control for Uplink Multi-user transmission Slide 1 Date:
EETS 8316 : WIRELESS NETWORKS Vamsi Krishna Medharametla
Submission doc.: IEEE /0333r0 March 2015 Oghenekome Oteri (InterDigital)Slide 1 Throughput Comparison of Some Multi-user Schemes in ax Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE /1454r1 November 2014 Jarkko Kneckt (Nokia)Slide ax Power Save Discussion Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1431r1 Submission September 2014 Issues on UL-OFDMA Transmission Date: Authors: Slide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /1454r0 November 2014 Jarkko Kneckt (Nokia)Slide ax Power Save Discussion Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0831r0 Submission July 2010 Yusuke Asai (NTT)Slide 1 Frame Sequence of Interference Management Using Beamforming Technique in OBSS.
Doc.: IEEE /0840r1 Submission AP Assisted Medium Synchronization Date: Authors: September 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /1289r2 Michelle Gong, IntelSlide 1 RTS/CTS Operation for Wider Bandwidth Date: Authors: Nov
Doc.: IEEE /1191r0 Submission September 2014 MAC calibration results Date: Authors: Zhou Lan (Huawei Technology)Slide 1.
Resolutions to Static RTS CTS Comments
Comparisons of Simultaneous Downlink Transmissions
Frame Exchange Control for Uplink Multi-user transmission
ACK Protection Schemes for the IEEE ac MU-MIMO Downlink
DL MU-MIMO ack protocol
HT Features in Mesh Network
DL MU MIMO Error Handling and Simulation Results
ACK Protection Schemes for the IEEE ac MU-MIMO Downlink
Strawmodel ac Specification Framework
Error Recovery Scheme for Scheduled Ack
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 1Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO Analysis and OBSS Simulation Results Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 2Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Outline Motivation Overview of simulated schemes –DL MU MIMO with polled ack –DL MU MIMO with scheduled ack Overview of MAC protection Overview of error handling at the AP –Two medium access behaviors Simulation parameters Simulation scenarios and simulation results Conclusion

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 3Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Motivation Downlink Multi-user MIMO is identified as a key technology to improve the overall network performance –Two DL MU MIMO Ack mechanisms were proposed in /r0 The goals of the simulation are –To study the behavior of the two DL MU MIMO ack mechanisms –To evaluate the performance difference of the two different AP medium access schemes in different scenarios

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 4Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO with scheduled Ack The AP contends for the medium using EDCA –The AP transmits a downlink MU MIMO burst to multiple STAs –Each data packet defines an offset value such that each STA knows when to transmit back a BA Scheduled Ack introduces less overhead but a STA needs to schedule its BA transmission Data (STA1) Data (STA3) BA Data (STA2) BA SIFS SIFS or RIFS pad

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 5Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Scheduled scheme does not handle the hidden node scenario well without RTS/CTS EIFS covers the duration of only one BA STAs that cannot decode the DL MU MIMO transmission would contend after EIFS and collide with the remaining BAs (NAV from RTS/CTS is required) Data (STA1) Data (STA3) Data (STA2) BA SIFS CCA idle BA STA1 STA2 STA3 AP1 AP2 STA3 STA4 STA2 STA5 STA6 STA1 EIFS = 94us

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 6Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO with Polled ACKs The AP contends for the medium using EDCA –The AP transmits a downlink MU MIMO burst to multiple STAs –One STA will transmit a BA immediately after receiving the data packet –The AP sends BAR frames to poll the remaining STAs for BAs Polled Ack introduces more overhead yet STAs don’t need to schedule BA transmissions Data (STA1) Data (STA3) BA Data (STA2) BA BAR SIFS pad

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 7Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Polled ack scheme can handle the following hidden node scenario without RTS/CTS STAs defer based on carrier sense + EIFS for DL MU- MIMO transmission STAs defer based on carrier sense + NAV for BAR/BA AP1 AP2 STA3 STA4 STA2 STA5 STA6 STA1 Data (STA1) Data (STA3) Data (STA2) BA SIFS EIFS = 94us BAR STA1 STA2 BA BAR STA3 CCA idle

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 8Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Overview of MAC protection Dynamic MAC protection: –One RTS or QoS-Null frame is transmitted to a STA that has failed to respond to a previous transmission –Upon receiving a RTS/QoS-Null frame, the STA replies with a CTS or an ACK Data (STA1) Data (STA3) BA Data (STA2) BA SIFS RTS CTS SIFS SIFS or RIFS AP STA2

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 9Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Dynamic MAC protection combined with error handling If a STA does not correctly respond to a data transmission, the AP flags the STA When packets destined to the flagged STA are ready to be transmitted, the AP transmits a RTS or a QoS-Null to the flagged STA The AP resets the flag to zero for the STA if it responds with a CTS or an ack correctly

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 10Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 AP’s medium access behavior (option 1) As long as one BA is received by the AP (or at least one received BA indicates correctly received new packets), the AP treats the DL SDMA transmission as a success –CW = CWmin If no BA is received (or no received BA indicates correctly received new packets), the AP treats the DL SDMA transmission as a failure and initiates exponential backoff –CW = (CW+1)*2-1 Data (STA1) Data (STA3) BA Data (STA2) BA SIFS or RIFS Backoff (CWmin) Data (STA1) BA Data (STA2) BA Data (STA3)

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 11Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 AP’s medium access behavior (option 2) If all BAs are received by the AP (or all received BA indicate correctly received new packets), the AP treats the DL SDMA transmission as a success –CW = CWmin If at least one BA is not received (or a received BA doesn’t indicate any correctly received packet), the AP treats the DL SDMA transmission as a failure and initiates exponential backoff –CW = (CW+1)*2-1 Data (STA1) Data (STA3) BA Data (STA2) BA SIFS or RIFS Exponential backoff Data (STA1) BA Data (STA2) BA Data (STA3)

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 12Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Simulation parameters One AP (4 antennas), three STAs (each with 2 antennas) in one BSS TXOP limit: 3 ms 20MHz: 52 data subcarriers, 4 pilot tones SIFS=16 us, RIFS=2us, aSlotTime=9 us Data packet size: 1500 bytes CWmin=7, CWmax=63 for AC_VI; CWmin=15, CWmax=1023 for AC_BE Data rates: a, 16QAM, r=1/2 for control rate (BAR/BA), n MCS7 (64QAM, r=5/6, nSS=1) for downlink data rate Assumption: each STA needs 2 antennas to receive one spatial stream in DL SDMA (MMSE precoding and MMSE receiver for resolvable LTFs) Training with implicit feedback Comparison: Response mechanisms –DL SDMA with scheduled ACK (SIFS) –DL SDMA with scheduled ACK (RIFS) –DL SDMA with polled ACK AP’s medium access behavior: two options

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 13Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Simulation scenario one Two overlapping BSSes –One AP and multiple STAs in one BSS –Both APs are DL SDMA capable Fully loaded network: –Downlink and uplink UDP traffic Goal: –Evaluate two DL SDMA response mechanisms when there are hidden nodes in the network AP1 AP2 STA3 STA4 STA2 STA5 STA6 STA1

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 14Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Without MAC protection, polled ack performs significantly better than scheduled ack Data (STA1) Data (STA3) Data (STA2) BA SIFS EIFS = 94us BA STA1 STA2 STA3 EIFS can protect only one BA STAs that cannot decode the DL SDMA transmission can contend and collide with the remaining BA Aggregated network throughput Polled ack Scheduled ack (SIFS)

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 15Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Simulation scenario two Two overlapping BSSes –All STAs can hear each other –Two cases: Case 1: AP1 is DL SDMA capable but AP2 is a legacy AP Case 2: Both APs are legacy APs Downlink UDP traffic Goal: –Study fairness in terms of each STA’s throughput AP1 AP2 STA2 STA4 STA1 STA5 STA6 STA3

doc.: IEEE /0yyyr0 Submission Slide 16Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 An AP utilizing a scheduled ack scheme is disadvantaged when there are legacy STAs Data (STA1) Data (STA3) Data (STA2) SIFS or RIFS TXOP SIFS or RIFS Utilizing the scheduled ack scheme, the AP needs to wait for the duration of three BAs Legacy STAs recover more quickly from a random access collision Case 1 Case 2 Per STA throughput for legacy STA

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 17Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Simulation scenario three Two overlapping BSSes –One AP and multiple STAs in one BSS –AP1 and AP2 are hidden nodes –Two cases: Case 1: AP1 is a DL SDMA capable AP; AP2 is a legacy AP Case 2: both APs are legacy APs Fully loaded network: –Downlink UDP traffic Dynamic MAC protection: Goal: –Evaluate two medium access options –Study fairness in terms of each STA’s throughput AP1AP2 STA2STA4 STA1 STA5 STA6STA3

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 18Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 With MAC protection, three response schemes have similar performance

doc.: IEEE /0yyyr0 Submission Slide 19Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Medium access option 1 yields better overall performance Case 1, Option 1 Case 1, Option 2 Case 1: AP1 (DL SDMA capable) AP2 (legacy) Medium access option 1: the AP initiates success backoff if at least one A-MPDU is successfully delivered Medium access option 2: the AP initiates exponential backoff if at least one A-MPDU is not successfully delivered

doc.: IEEE /0yyyr0 Submission Slide 20Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 With Option 1, STAs that support DL SDMA have higher throughput Case 1, Option 1Case 1, Option 2

doc.: IEEE /0yyyr0 Submission Slide 21Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Option 1 does not disadvantage legacy STAs (Case 1, Option 1) vs Case 2 Case 1: AP1 (DL SDMA capable) AP2 (legacy) Case 2: both APs are legacy APs STA5 and 6 in both case 1 and case 2 STA4 in both case 1 and case 2 Per STA throughput for legacy STA

doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 22Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 Conclusion Three DL MU MIMO response schemes –With MAC protection, the three response mechanisms have similar performance –Without MAC protection, polled ack mechanism has better performance Medium access schemes –Option 1: The AP initiates success backoff when at least one A-MPDU is successfully delivered –Option 2: The AP initiates exponential backoff when at least one A- MPDU is not successfully delivered Medium access scheme option 1 offers better overall performance when there are legacy STAs in the vicinity and it does not disadvantage legacy STAs