Doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/0014r0 Submission January 2013 802.11mc TXOP Limits Date: 2012-12 Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 A More Efficient Protection Mechanism Terry Cole AMD Fellow +1.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /0012r0 Submission January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide mc Annex N Discussion/Proposals Date: Authors:
Dynamic Sensitivity Control V2
Doc.: IEEE /1012r0 Submission Sept 2013 Dynamic Sensitivity Control Improvement to area throughput Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide.
Doc.:IEEE /861r0 July 2012 EDCA Parameters Date: Authors: Slide 1.
Sleep States in IEEE ax Simulation Scenarios
Doc.: IEEE /1404r0 Submission November 2014 Eisuke Sakai, Sony CorporationSlide 1 11aa GCR-BA Performance in OBSS Date: 2014/11/2 Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0567r0 May 2015 Xiaofei Wang (InterDigital)Slide 1 Multi-STA BA for SU Transmissions Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /1326r0 Extend Submission Panasonic Nov 2012 PSDU Size For Receiver Sensitivity Power Level Date: Authors:
More about channels In b/g, there are 11 channels, starting at 2.412GHz at a spacing of 5MHz. Each channel owns a bandwidth of 22MHz.
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-12/0246r2 NameAffiliationsAddressPhone Jing-Rong HsiehHTC Corp. 1F, 6-3 Baoqiang Road, Xindian district, New Taipei City,
Doc.: IEEE /1081r0 SubmissionSayantan Choudhury HEW Simulation Methodology Date: Sep 16, 2013 Authors: Slide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /1290r0 Submission Nov 2013 Dynamic Sensitivity Control for HEW SG Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /0094r2 Submission Jan 2012 Slide 1 Authors: MAC Header Design for Small Data Packet for ah Date: Lv kaiying, ZTE.
Doc.: IEEE /1207r1 Submission September 2013 Matthew Fischer et al (Broadcom)Slide 1 CID 205 BSSID Color Bits Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0717r1 Submission July 2008 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide Packets and MPEG Frames Background to Graceful degradation of audio.
Doc.: IEEE /0062r0 Submission Jan 2010 Alex Ashley, NDS LtdSlide 1 OBSS HCCA Race Condition Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission May 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 Considerations for Statistical Multiplexing Support in OBSS Proposal.
Doc.: IEEE /1120r0 Submission Buffer Status Report Slide 1 Date: Authors: Alfred Asterjadhi, et. al. September 2015.
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission March 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 OBSS “OSQAP” QoS Issues Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0890r0 July 2012 Fei Tong, CSRSlide ah Multi-User Aggregation PDU Date: 2012-July-16 Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1378r0 Submission November 2008 Darwin Engwer, Nortel NetworksSlide 1 Improving Multicast Reliability Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-12/535r1 May 2012 Jarkko Kneckt, NokiaSlide 1 Scanning and FILS requirements Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission Apr 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 Considerations for Statistical Multiplexing Support in OBSS Proposal.
Doc.: IEEE /1191r0 Submission September 2014 MAC calibration results Date: Authors: Zhou Lan (Huawei Technology)Slide 1.
Submission Jul 2012 doc.: IEEE 11-12/0842r0 ZTE CorporationSlide 1 Short Beamforming Report Poll Frame Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0294r1 Submission Dynamic Sensitivity Control Channel Selection and Legacy Sharing Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide.
Doc.: IEEE /0126r1 Submission January mc HEMM Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /0415r0 Submission April mc CIDs 1136,1118,1458 Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission November 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 EDCA Bandwidth Factor Date: 2009, November 17 Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0370r0 Submission January 2012 Haiguang Wang et. al, I2R, SingaporeSlide 1 TIM Compression Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0635r1 Submission May 2014 Dynamic Sensitivity Control Implementation Date: 2014-May Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0102r0 January 2016 Sean Coffey, RealtekSlide 1 High Efficiency Medium Access via Rosters Date:
Doc.: IEEE /0400r0 SubmissionZander Lei, I2R SingaporeSlide 1 ACK Transmission Date: Authors: March 2012.
Doc.:IEEE /517r0 Submission August 2002 IBM Research Slide 1 Some Clarifications to IEEE e, Draft 3.2, August 2002 H.L. Truong and G. Vannuccini.
Doc.: IEEE /034r0 Submission January 2002 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg ChairpersonSlide 1 TGg Report to the IEEE Working Group Matthew B. Shoemake.
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-14/1161r0 September 2014 Eric Wong et al (Apple)Slide 1 Parameters for Power Save Mechanisms Date: Authors:
Overlapping BSS Proposed Solution – “OSQAP”
AP Power Saving Date: Authors: May 2017 Month Year
UL OFDMA Random Access Control
Sleep States in IEEE ax Simulation Scenarios
Parameters for Power Save Mechanisms
How to collect STAs’ Tx demands for UL MU
AP access procedure for UL MU operation
QoS Tutorial Date: Authors: Nov 2008 Nov 2008
Enhancing BSS Transition Management
Channel Access Efficiency
MAC Clarifications Date: Authors: September 2016
Alternate EDCA Parameter Set
Consideration of EDCA for WUR Signal
Considerations for OBSS Sharing using QLoad Element
MDA comments categorization
Video Broadcast/Multicast
Empirical Formula for EDCA Bandwidth Factor
HCCAOP Scheme, Efficiency and Sharing
802.11e QoS Tutorial Date: Authors: Nov 2008 Nov 2008
Overlapping BSS Proposed Solution – “OSQAP”
DL MU MIMO Error Handling and Simulation Results
Proposed Overlapping BSS Solution
Proposed Overlapping BSS Solution
Recommendation for EDCA Bandwidth Factor
Considerations for OBSS Sharing using QLoad Element
Alternate EDCA Parameter Set
HCCAOP Scheme, Efficiency and Sharing
Alternate EDCA Parameter Set
Video Broadcast/Multicast
802.11e QoS Tutorial Date: Authors: Oct 2008 Oct 2008
Consideration of EDCA for WUR Signal
TG ax DSC derived CCAeff and OBSS_PD
Indicating NGV Capabilities in MAC Header
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission January mc TXOP Limits Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission January 2013 Abstract This document contains a discussion and proposals relating to the EDCA Parameter Set element for TXOP Limit. Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Background January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 3 TXOP Limits are recommended in Table ACTXOP Limit (802.11b) TXOP Limit (802.11a/g/n) BK00 BE00 VI6.016ms3.008ms VO3.264ms1.504ms A TXOP limit value of 0 indicates that a single (A-) MSDU/(A-MPDU) or MMPDU may be transmitted…”

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Why TXOP Limit? Within a TXOP, the sender can transmit packets separated by SIFS as against every packet having to contend. The objective is to increase the efficiency for EDCA, especially AC_VI. Points: TXOP Limit of 0 means just one packet (of any length) may be transmitted per TXOP. Retries may exceed the TXOP Limit, but if so they should be sent using the standard Back off and not allowed to use the SIFS spacing. TXOP Limit was introduced to increase efficiency for 11a/b/g 11n efficiency is by the use of aggregation not TXOP Limit. January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 4

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Problem with A-MPDUs and TXOP Limit If the existing recommended TXOP limits are used for 11n, and in particular A- MPDUs, then the following results: –A VI (or VO) aggregated packet is constrained to the TXOP limit BUT –A BE or BK aggregated packet is not constrained Simple options that have been considered include: A – TXOP limit is only for subsequent packets No difference for BE but now VI is on an equal footing. Disadvantage of this is that if a finite TXOP limit is applied to BE, then it does not restrict BE as the first packet can still be exceedingly long B – A TXOP limit of 0 indicates “aggregation not allowed” Disadvantage is that this restricts BE to be inefficient. And probably liability issue, and doesn’t help for low PHY rates (e.g. 1 Mbps) Note: A 1Mbps 1500B packet is about 13ms in duration (restricted to 10ms) January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 5

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Packet Times – VI 1316B, AES January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 6

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Discussion Suggest using following criteria to select the TXOP Limit –Long enough to allow real efficiency improvement for non-aggregated packets (11a/g) –Not too long so as make packets very long (~10ms) on retries Note that an A-MPDUs can be (re) assembled to fit the limit –Also can be re assembled for ‘re-tries’ Limit for a single MPDU at lowest PHY Rate should not exceed 10ms –Except for video at 1Mbps, this does not happen (see slide) {What happens if a retry from 2Mbps to 1Mbps, can it be sent? Different subject} –8K A-MSDUs results in 5.036ms duration at 13Mbps, and 9.964ms at 6.5Mbps (phew!) For Video (1316B packets) 64k A-MPDU provides for 42 MPDUs and at 130Mbps is 4.108ms. –This seems like a reasonable candidate. Alternative is to stay with 3.008ms, this allows 33 MPDUs in the A-MPDU at 130Mbps. Another alternative is to allow only one A-MPDU at AC_VI January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 7

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Proposed TXOP Limits BE, BK Options: 1.Make BE and BK same as VI, allow similar durations and rely on the priority to favor VI 2.Make the limit half of VI, give VI a definite advantage while still allowing reasonable number of back-to-back packets at BE, e.g. 5 BE vs 10 VI Propose the 50% rule. 11b The 6.016ms VI TXOP Limit allows 4 packets at 11Mbps Hence TXOP Limit set to 3.008ms for BE and BK, 2 packets at 11Mbp 11a/g 3.008ms VI TXOP Limit allows 10 packets at 54Mbps Hence TXOP Limit set to 1.504ms for BE and BK, 5 packets at 54Mbps. 11n 4.128ms VI TXOP Limit allows 42 packets at 130Mbps 3.008ms VI TXOP Limit allows 33 packets at 130Mbps Hence TXOP Limit set to 2.064ms, or 1.504ms for BE and BK Could leave 11b alone, as very rarely used January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 8

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Same TXOP Limits for 11a/g/n? Use the proposed limits for 11n also for 11a/g 4.128ms, compared to 3.008ms for AC_VI 11a/g Rate54 Mbps48 Mbps36 Mbps24 Mbps18 Mbps12 Mbps6 Mbps Packet + Ack, ms Pkts in 3008us a/g Rate54 Mbps48 Mbps36 Mbps24 Mbps18 Mbps12 Mbps6 Mbps Packet + Ack, ms Pkts in 4128us Suggest that single set of limits will work Keeping the present 3.008ms may be better politically (least change the better?) Using 4.128ms does allow full 64k aggregation at 130Mbps. Could go higher as A-MPDUs can be re-assembled on re-tries.. January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 9

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission VO considerations At present it has been simply set to 50% of AC_VI. Why? What is the Use case for TXOP Limits for VO? Voice Packets are sent at the rate of one MSDU at a minimum service interval of 10ms (usually 20ms), so never need for back to back packets. G711 (biggest data packet) is 160B at 20ms intervals. –2538ms at 1Mbps –1468ms at 2Mbps (long Preamble) –396us at 6.5Mbps –For worse case, need to add time for RTS/CTS (628us for 1Mbps) = > 3008 Interesting to note that in 11g network, a G711 voice packet could not be sent at 1Mbps with present limit. (TXOP Limit 1.504ms). 11b used 3.264ms for VO, which is OK. (3.008ms plus some margin?) If we use a single set of TXOP Limits for 11/a/g/n, then should we allow the voice packet at 1Mbps, i.e ms? Or stick with the 1.504ms? A voice Packet would need to be fragmented at 1Mbps, is this desirable? NO Suggest we stick to the 50% of AC_VI and keep it simple. January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 10

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Proposal A for 11a/b/g/n BSS January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide ms

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Proposal B 11a/b/g/n BSS January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 12 Change the Default Table to ACTXOP Limit (802.11b) TXOP Limit (802.11a/g/n) BK3.264ms 2.064ms BE3.264ms 2.064ms VI6.016ms4.128ms VO3.264ms2.064ms These are recommended values, not mandated Specifying 0 or other values is still an option for the AP Does solve the long 1Mbps packet ‘problem’

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Discussion The proposed default TXOP Limits are compatible with aggregated packets and also still cater for 11a/g These are the recommended Default settings and do not effect the result of the AP setting its own values. There is no intended fundamental change to the basic rule of TXOP Limit = 0 meaning one packet, of any length. January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 13

doc.: IEEE /0014r0 Submission Proposal 11a/b/g/n BSS January 2013 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 14 Change the Default values for TXOP Limits in Table ACTXOP Limit (802.11b) TXOP Limit (802.11a/g/n) BK3.264ms 2.064ms BE3.264ms 2.064ms VI6.016ms4.128ms VO3.264ms2.064ms These are default values, not mandated Specifying 0 or other values is still an option for the AP STRAW POLL : Agree? Yes/ No/ “Need more time to study/think about it”