doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 1 Project: IEEE P Coexistence TAG Submission Title: Coexistence Classes Update Date Submitted: 13 November, 2002 Source: Jim Lansford, Company Mobilian Corporation Address 7431 NW Evergreen Pkwy, Hillsboro, OR Voice: , FAX: , Re: Abstract:Additional work on the concept of coexistence classes, where the coexistence of one system with another is assigned a score Purpose:For discussion Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 2 Coexistence Classes Update Jim Lansford Henry Nielsen ST Microelectronics

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 3 Overview Goals: Allow coexistence to be scored or graded –WGs can use in selection criteria – can use to grade proposals Initial presentation in September –Levels 0-4 –Augmented over time to allow more fine-grained –Need more help to move this forward

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 4 Review: Varying facets of Coexistence Ability of a system to –Perform its own tasks, possibly in hostile environment –Detect other systems –Adapt to presence of other systems –Reduce impact of its operation on other systems –Negotiate with other systems Are to be evaluated both in-band and out-of-band Depend strongly on separation distance Are defined and conceived of differently in each organization

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 5 Review: Proposed Coexistence Classes 0Ignorant of possibility that other systems or protocols may exist 1Aware that others may exist, expects them to make any adaptations 2Aware that others may exist, unilaterally acts to reduce impact 3Actively detects others, unilaterally acts to reduce impact on them 4Actively detects others, negotiates with them to optimize mutual performance A device or system may be characterized by different coexistence classes in different bands. e.g. An AFH Bluetooth WPAN is class-3 wrt b, but may be class-0 for some proprietary ISM systems

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 6 Possible Grading Scale Included criteria such as throughput degradation, latency, jitter, etc. Proposal evaluation – who does? –How objective can this grading scale be? –Can really do this? (or back on WG to assist) Standard “X”Standard “Y”Standard “Z” Other? (microwave, radar, cordless phone, etc.) Proposal “a”0235 Proposal “b”1352 Proposal3210

doc.: IEEE /011r0 Submission November 2002 Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 7 Next steps PHY vs PHY+MAC evaluation –SIR can give 1 st cut at throughput degradation –Interference quantifies problem, grading gives indication of expected improvement Need to flesh out grading criteria –Examples: AFH, AWMA, PTA –802.11h (DFS/TPC) Can this be turned into a general procedure?