doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 1 Proposal for the 5 criteria for the HT SG

doc.: IEEE /661r1 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 /661r1 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 /661r1 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 /661r1 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 /661r1 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 /661r1 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 /661r1 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.

doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 9 Motion 1 Motion to approve the following as the response to the first criteria: This project will extend the throughput provided by , thereby enabling new applications that require these rates. Products based on a and b have proved to be very popular; g products will become popular during the projected lifetime of this project. This project continues the evolution of to address the growing demand for throughput. Demand for WLANs is expected to grow at a 50% Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the next five years. Over 50% of all home networking connections and over 40% of all mobile PC network connections will be over WLAN by New usages such as simultaneous transmission of multiple HDTV signals, audio, on-line gaming, etc. will drive the need for higher throughput in the home. As usage increases in the corporate and other high density environments, bandwidth restrictions of a shared media will begin to be realized. This is very similar to what happened in the wired Ethernet market. The need for higher throughput drove switching and 100Base-TX adoption. While a switching technology would ultimately be desired for WLAN, this is not technically feasible. The next logical step is to increase the data throughput of each WLAN Connection. This throughput increase must be enough to accommodate user needs for the next 5 years.

doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 10 Motion 2 Motion to approve the following as the response to the second criteria: This project will result in an evolution of the existing standards providing co- existence and compatibility with a and g. It will introduce no architectural changes – i.e. the MAC data SAP definition will not be altered. New managed objects will be defined as necessary in a format and structure consistent with existing managed objects.

doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 11 Motion 3 Motion to approve the following as the response to criterion 3a: This project will result in a wireless LAN with higher throughput than provided by a, b and g. The goal is to increase overall system throughput by considering both PHY and MAC layer enhancements. IEEE P study group SG3a will support higher-rates than those currently defined by P task group 3, and similar to those targeted by this proposal. However, the applications of and are different defines standards for wireless personal area networks, defines standards for wireless local area networks. The different requirements of each group may result in different standards that satisfy the purpose and scope defined in each projects PAR.

doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 12 Motion 4 Motion to approve the following as the response to the fourth criteria: The project is technically feasible because proprietary extensions of supporting higher throughput have been demonstrated in the laboratory. Simulations are available that demonstrate the feasibility and performance of new PHY layer techniques based on an evolution of the existing modem that result in significant throughput improvement. MAC layer changes are at least necessary to manage the new PHY layer, and may be able to provide additional performance gains.

doc.: IEEE /661r1 Submission November 2002 Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 13 Motion 5 Motion to approve the following as the response to the fifth criteria: Support of the proposed standard will probably require a manufacturer to develop a modified radio and modem. This is similar in principle to the transition between b and g. The new standard will provide manufacturers the option of supporting higher throughput. Competition between manufacturers will ensure that costs are reasonable. The proposal has no known impact on installation costs.