Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 A More Efficient Protection Mechanism Terry Cole AMD Fellow +1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 UNIT I (Contd..) High-Speed LANs. 2 Introduction Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet Fibre Channel Fibre Channel High-speed.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /061r0 Submission January 2001 Mark Schrader, Eastman Kodak CompanySlide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal.
Doc.: IEEE /272a Submission June 2001 S. Choi, Philips Research Slide 1 Problems with IEEE (e) NAV Operation and ONAV Proposal Javier del.
Doc.: IEEE /300R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 Slides to Assist with Joint Meeting of TgE and TgG Terry Cole AMD Fellow
Doc.: IEEE /037r1 Submission March 2001 Khaled Turki et. al,Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 Simulation Results for p-DCF, v-DCF and Legacy DCF Khaled.
Doc: IEEE /705ar0 Submission Javier del Prado et. al November 2002 Slide 1 Mandatory TSPEC Parameters and Reference Design of a Simple Scheduler.
Doc.: IEEE /0338r1 Submission March 2012 Hung-Yu Wei, National Taiwan UniversitySlide 1 DeepSleep: Power Saving Mode to Support a Large Number.
Doc.: IEEE /567r0 Submission May 2003 Youngsoo Kim, Samsung/SNU and S. Choi, SNU Slide 1 Throughput Enhancement via Frame Aggregation – A Sequel.
A Brief Introduction to the IEEE802.11h Draft
Doc.: IEEE /567r1 Submission July 2003 Youngsoo Kim, Samsung/SNU and S. Choi, SNU Slide 1 Throughput Enhancement via Frame Aggregation – A Sequel.
Legacy Coexistence – A Better Way?
Doc.: IEEE /1392r0 Submission November 12, 2008 De Vegt (Qualcomm)Slide 1 Inputs for a VHT Selection Procedure Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /372r0 A New Approach to the NAV June, 2001 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 A New Approach to the NAV Author: Matthew.
Doc.: IEEE /412r0 Submission S. Choi, Philips Research July 2001 Slide 1 Aligning e HCF and h TPC Operations Amjad Soomro, Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /0534r1 Submission Duration in L-SIG Date: Youhan Kim, et al.Slide 1 Authors: May 2010.
Submission Page 1 January 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.RR-02/018A-d1 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems Report of ad hoc group relating to DFS and JPT5G proposal Andrew.
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Title Subtitle.
Year 6 mental test 5 second questions
A Bandwidth Allocation/Sharing/Extension Protocol for Multimedia Over IEEE Ad Hoc Wireless LANs Shiann-Tsong Sheu and Tzu-fang Sheu IEEE JOURNAL.
Doc.: IEEE /0259r02 Submission Date: ad New Technique Proposal March 2010 Yuichi Morioka, Sony CorporationSlide 1 Authors:
Doc.:IEEE /0859r0 July 2012 Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Inc Short Block Ack Date: Authors:
Doc.:IEEE /525Ar0 Submission September 2002 Mathilde Benveniste, Avaya Labs Slide 1 Simplifying Polling Mathilde Benveniste
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,
Doc.: IEEE /543r0 Submission April 2006 Richard van Nee, Airgo NetworksSlide 1 Transmitter CCA Issues in 2.4 GHz April /543r0 Richard van.
Doc.: IEEE /1355r2 11ah Submission Date: Authors: Nov 2012 James Wang, MediaTek Slide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /0295r0 Submission PRAW Follow Up Date: Authors: March 2013.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0166r0January 2011 Barbara Staehle, Uni WürzburgSlide 1Barbara Staehle, Uni WürzburgSlide 1Barbara Staehle, Uni Würzburg.
Doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier.
Doc.: IEEE /0578r0 Submission 2008 May Jarkko Kneckt, NokiaSlide 1 Forwarding in mesh containing MPs in power save Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0315r1 Submission Mar 2008 Hart (Cisco Systems) Slide 1 Coexistence Mechanisms at 5 GHz Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0798r1 Submission July 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.
January 2002 Khaled Turki et. al, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /022r0 Submission TID Field Usage in QoS CF-Poll Khaled Turki and Matthew.
Doc.: IEEE /571r0 CC/RR Model and Simulations November, 2001 Matthew Sherman & Wei Lin, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 CC/RR Model and Simulations.
Interference Cancellation for Downlink MU-MIMO
Doc.: IEEE /0608r2 Submission May 2012 Shoukang Zheng et. al, I2R, SingaporeSlide 1 Low-Power PS-Poll Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0665r1 Submission May 2012 Anh Tuan Hoang et al (I2R) Slide 1 Prioritized PS-Polls Date: Authors:
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 /0567r0 Submission Slide 1Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO Analysis and OBSS Simulation Results Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1457r0 Submission December 2010 David Halasz, OakTree WirelessSlide 1 Frequency Hopping Review and IEEE ah Date:
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 /289r0 Submission Bobby Jose,Slide 1 March 2002 CC/RR Alternatives HCF Adhoc Discussion Work Sheet V00.04 Bobby Jose, et.al
Doc.:IEEE /0037r0 Submission Jan. 17, 2011 Yong Liu, MarvellSlide 1 BW Indication in Non-HT Frames Date: Authors:
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.
25 seconds left…...
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
Doc.: IEEE /0606r1 Submission Uplink Channel Access Date: Authors: May 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
14.1 Chapter 14 Wireless LANs Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
TIM Compression Date: Authors: January 2012 Month Year
– Wireless PHY and MAC Stallings Types of Infrared FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum) DSSS (direct sequence.
802.11g & e Presenter : Milk. Outline g  Overview of g  g & b co-exist QoS Limitations of e  Overview of.
Doc.: IEEE /0094r2 Submission Jan 2012 Slide 1 Authors: MAC Header Design for Small Data Packet for ah Date: Lv kaiying, ZTE.
Doc.: IEEE /0880r2 Submission Scheduled Trigger frames July 2015 Slide 1 Date: Authors: A. Asterjadhi, H. Choi, et. al.
Doc.: IEEE /0840r1 Submission AP Assisted Medium Synchronization Date: Authors: September 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /0231r3 Submission March 2010 John R. Barr, JRBarr, Ltd. & NiCTSlide 1 Efficient Methods for Coexistence with Other 60GHz Systems Date:
MAC for WLAN Doug Young Suh Last update : Aug 1, 2009 WLAN DCF PCF.
Resolutions to Static RTS CTS Comments
Doc.: IEEE /034r0 Submission January 2002 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg ChairpersonSlide 1 TGg Report to the IEEE Working Group Matthew B. Shoemake.
Spec text clarification for FDMA
MAC Clarifications Date: Authors: September 2016
May 2002 doc.: IEEE /299R0 May 2002 Slides to Assist with non-19 Comments (based on R1 Comment Resolution Excel Sheet) Terry Cole AMD.
802.11g NAV Propagation (based on g Draft 2.1 Jan-2002)
Mandatory Protection Mechanisms
802.11g Contention Period – Solution for Co-existence with Legacy
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 A More Efficient Protection Mechanism Terry Cole AMD Fellow

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 2 Introduction Slides to assist the committee to consider available alternatives, if any, for improving the RTS/CTS protection mechanism We have numerous comments on the protection mechanism: –Indicating that RTS/CTS is insufficiently efficient and requesting improvement –Proposing a OFDM only contention period –Suggesting the RTS/CTS does not function for fragments and requesting clarification

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 3 Methodology Use ns2 to explore and quantify the options –Validated a mixed b/g model by recreating the results presented in 02/ g MAC Analysis Modeled the situation of 02/181r1 –Modeled certain possible improvements Modeled a proposal based on multiple OFDM frames protected by a single RTS/CTS

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 4 Base Simulation Multiple flows modeled for the following cases representative of a variety of mixed networks: –3b, 2b+1g, 1b+1g, 1b+2g, 3g with RTS/CTS, 3g no protection Modeled g according to the draft 2.0 spec –OFDM-24 (24Mbps) –short preamble and CCK-11 (11Mbps) –aCWmin = 15 slot times –Infinite flows (network overload at each source)

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 5 Base Case Results (802.11g D2.0)

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 6 ERP Contention Period (ERP-CP) Simulation Assumptions –CCK-11 beacon an OFDM-24 CF-End at regular intervals of 50ms –AP has a locally generated control variable to set the duty cycle (ERP-CP time as set by the CF parameters / total time). We set this to 30-60% to get results shown. –Same topologies and infinite flows as base case –aCwmin was varied during common contention period (for reasons that will be seen in results) –aCWmin= 15 slots during ERP-CP.

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 7 ERP-CP Results KEY: CCP(a) b a = common contentio period aCWmin (slot times), b = ERP-CP duty cycle (ratio)

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 8 ERP-CP Results KEY: CCP(a) b a = common contentio period aCWmin (slot times), b = ERP-CP duty cycle (ratio)

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 9 ERP-CP Results KEY: CCP(a) b a = common contentio period aCWmin (slot times), b = ERP-CP duty cycle (ratio)

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 10 Observations g nodes get more throughput as predicted! b nodes get significantly less throughput! –The common contention period is the only time a CCK node can transmit, and the common period is reducing –With aCWmin=15 slots times, a g node is twice as likely to win contention during the common contention period as compared to a b node Using common contention aCWmin=31 or 63, we can make the b nodes perform as in the base case –compensating the CCK nodes during the common contention period since they dont get to participate in the ERP-CP

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 11 Changes Needed for ERP-CP Allow CF-End to be broadcast using OFDM Define ERP contention period (ERP-CP): –ERP-CP starts with any CCK beacon with non-zero CF parameter time elements followed by OFDM modulated CF-END before the expiration of the CF time elements. –ERP-CP ends with expiration of the original non-zero CFP time elements or by a HR modulated CF-END Change the behavior of ERP nodes: –A ERP device shall ignore nonERP bits (i.e. nonERP = 00) during the ERP-CP and shall use aCWmin = 15 slot times –802.11g node that has observed any ERP-CP within the last 30 seconds shall use aCWmin = 63 slot times except during an ERP-CP; it shall use aCWmin = 15 slot times otherwise.

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 12 Exploring another Method RTS/CTS sets the NAV of all CCK nodes Why not allow optional transmission of more than one OFDM frame during this NAV protected time? –From same sender –To same recipient –Time not to exceed maximum packet length transmitted at 11Mbps (to avoid messing up future QoS) –Can be used for fragments or simple frames –When using optional multi-pump RTS/CTS, must contend equally with CCK nodes, i.e. aCWmin = 31 slot times –May be mixed with mandatory mode simple RTS/CTS using aCWmin=15 slot times

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 13 Multi-pump RTS/CTS Simulation Assumptions –CCK-11 RTS/CTS –Short preamble CCK –OFDM-24 data frames therefore only double pumping allowed –Same topologies and flows as base case –aCWmin= 15 slot times for single RTS/CTS –aCWmin= 31 slot times for multi-pumped RTS/CTS

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 14 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 15 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 16 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 17 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 18 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 19 Multi-Pump RTS/CTS Results

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 20 Changes Needed for Multi-Pump RTS. –In the case of the ERP, the duration value (of the RTS) may alternately be the time, in microseconds, required to transmit several pending data or management frames, plus one CTS frame and SIFS, plus one ACK frame per data or management frame, and 2 SIFS per data or management frame. The RTS and all data or management frames shall be addressed from the same sender and to a single recipient address. The calculated duration field for the ERP RTS shall not exceed the time required to transmit a single 2254 octet data frame plus a RTS, CTS, and ACK frames using the HR 11Mbps PHY.

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 21 Changes Needed for Multi-Pump CTS – no modification is required Add to Table 21 (allowed sequences): –erpRTS – CTS – [ Last – Ack]+ –erpRTS – CTS [Frag – Ack]+ Last – Ack –Note 24: Items enclosed in brackets with a + […]+ may occur one or more times in the sequence –Note 25: erpRTS is a control frame of subtype RTS that contains a duration value as described in covering time required to transmit multiple data or management frames from a single requester to a single recipient address.

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 22 Changes Needed for Multi-Pump –Change the aCWmin to 15 slot times except if using the frame sequences defined in Table 21 starting with erpRTS. For frame sequences defined in Table 21 starting with erpRTS, aCWmin shall be 31 slot times.

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 23 Changes Needed for Multi-Pump Control of the channel –Add to the 6 th paragraph –In the case of an ERP using a sequence defined in Table 21 beginning with erpRTS, the source STA shall attempt to retransmit the failed MPDU without contending for the channel again, if the transmitted frame and the ACK can be completed prior to the expiration of the NAV period described by the erpRTS frame. Otherwise, the source STA may transmit the failed MPDU without contending using a sequence in Table 21 starting with RTS (and not with erpRTS).

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 24 Which Method is Best? Simple RTS/CTS described in the current draft may be sufficient ERP contention period (ERP-CP) with aCWmin=15 seems to negatively impact CCK nodes ERP-CP aCWmin=31 or 63 slot times gives significant benefits Multi-pump RTS/CTS option seems viable

doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 25 Straw Poll Binary yes/no – Should we improve the efficiency of the current RTS/CTS method in g D2.0? Binary yes/no –Should we add one of the ERP contention period methods Exclusive (choose 1) Should we add an ERP-CP option with common contention aCWmin = –15 ? or 31? or 63? Binary (yes/no) –Should we add the optional multi-pump RTS/CTS method