1. Intel Validation of TGn Simulation Scenarios
January 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2003
Intel Validation of TGn Simulation Scenarios
Adrian P Stephens
Dmitry Akhmetov
Sergey Shtin
Intel Corporation
Adrian Stephens, Intel
John Doe, His Company

2. January 2002
doc.: IEEE /xxxr0
November 2003
Purpose of the work
To show that the simulation scenarios defined in are implementable in a realistic protocol
Adrian Stephens, Intel
John Doe, His Company

3. Simulation Methodology
November 2003
Simulation Methodology
Adrian Stephens, Intel

4. November 2003
Methodology
Framework: Opnet V9 with substantially modified components
PHY Model:
TGn channel models (with shadowing)
Collect SNIR per sub-carrier per interference region
Adaptive Bit Loading
MAC Model:
DCF channel access
RTS/CTS training exchange
Aggregate transmission using ABL-trained packets
Adrian Stephens, Intel

5. Methodology - 2 Only interested in the QoS (UDP) flows
November 2003
Methodology - 2
Only interested in the QoS (UDP) flows
Don’t have EDCA or HCCA yet
Assume HCCA good enough to isolate UDP based on polled TXOPs from loss of service by applied TCP/IP flows
Measure throughput, delay, number of packets lost and delayed “too long”
Adrian Stephens, Intel

6. November 2003
PHY Performance (40MHz)
Peer-to-peer saturated link. Only distance is changed during the simulation.
Output signal power 17 dBm.
For every point 3000 data packets were used for data collection.
Allocated bandwidth: 40 MHz.
Modulation: BPSK.
For E&V channel model the shadowing gain was turned off.
Averaged BER value was collected during whole simulation (including control frames).
3 conditions were evaluated per channel model:
1 Tx antenna X 1 Rx antenna.
1 Tx antenna X 2 Rx antennas. The same shadowing gain was used for both receiving antennas. Antenna with strongest input level was selected for the future analysis.
1 Tx antenna X 2 Rx antennas. Each antenna has own shadowing gain. Antenna with strongest input level was selected for the future analysis.
Adrian Stephens, Intel

7. November 2003
PHY Performance
Adrian Stephens, Intel

8. MAC Results Conditions Expect to be similar to 2x2 40MHz results
November 2003
MAC Results
Conditions
1x1 Antenna configuration
Channel width 80MHz
to give 4x raw speed
Because we haven’t completed our MIMO model yet
Expect to be similar to 2x2 40MHz results
Adrian Stephens, Intel

9. Scenario 1 – Aggregate throughput
November 2003
Scenario 1 – Aggregate throughput
Adrian Stephens, Intel

10. November 2003
Scenario 1 – Delay
Adrian Stephens, Intel

11. Scenario 1 – Delay (individual)
November 2003
Scenario 1 – Delay (individual)
Adrian Stephens, Intel

12. November 2003
Scenario 4 – Enterprise
Adrian Stephens, Intel

13. Scenario 4 – QoS Performance
November 2003
Scenario 4 – QoS Performance Rx Tx
Delay limit ms
Peak ETE delay
Total received
% packet late
Max allowed
STA0
All STA 30
100
21586
2% 0.2% 5% 1%
STA25
461
1 MSDU
STA26
STA27
STA28
460
STA29
2 MSDU
STA30
457
1.5%
Adrian Stephens, Intel

14. Incomplete Simulation scenarios not implemented: Simulation 2
November 2003
Incomplete
Simulation scenarios not implemented:
9 & 11
Don’t expect any problems
Simulation 2
Needs EDCA
Using DCF means high Video Rate traffic causes UDP voice to exceed its delay limits
Need to look at the delayed PLR vs limits (so far only “eyeballed” them, except for scenario 4
Adrian Stephens, Intel

15. November 2003
Conclusion
All scenarios except 9,11 and 2 have been simulated as specified including only UDP traffic
All scenarios appear to meet the QoS limits
Recommend we recommend acceptance of these scenarios to TGn in Albuquerque
Any changed models/scenarios will need re-validation
Adrian Stephens, Intel