Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward



Hi Mariana,

 

I’d like to see an additional line with offered load of 0 kbps, as well.

 

Thanks,

Ken

 


From: Mariana Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:57 AM
To: Kenneth Stanwood; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx; david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx; eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx; john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

Hi Ken,

 

1. To explicitly address your concern, here is the loading defined by the parameter document (fig. 10 in 07/011r14):

 

Inter arrival time (ms)

Offered load (kbps)

MANDATORY (Scenarios A - E)

100

120

Yes

20

600

Yes

5

2400

Yes

1.25

9600

Yes

 

The loading here varies from very low to the max. system capacity when operating alone in the channel.

 

Regards,

 

Mariana


From: Kenneth Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:38 PM
To: Mariana Goldhamer; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx; david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx; eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx; john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

Hi Mariana,

 

Yes, 802.19 does not design the protocols, but understanding how system work should be factored into how we measure coexistence going forward.

 

As I said below:

 

At a minimum, if a throughput metric is used instead, there must be a solid requirement that system A’s impact on the throughput of system B must be simulated for a variety of cases where system A has low or no demand.

 

It’s not clear to me why such an obvious part of coexistence shouldn’t be measured.

 

Regards,

Ken

 


From: Mariana Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Kenneth Stanwood; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx; david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx; eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx; john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: RE: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

Hi Ken,

 

I think that we do not discuss in this group how the 16h protocols are designed. The only issue which is relevant for 802.19 is the coexistence assessment.

 

So you can keep your design based on any criteria you want. The metrics, as throughput, relative throughput and hidden nodes will show how your solution behaves. The same about CX-CBP.  The parameter document has enough modes to address the situations of concern to you.

 

 It is better to use the time and see the simulation results and to try to understand them and interpret them, instead of conducting discussions on what the “medium occupancy” should be. The aggregate throughput (or relative throughput) of the two systems is an excellent metrics for seeing how flexible their coexistence is. You can try different loading levels.

The hidden nodes are an excellent metrics to show how many of the stations will suffer from “harmful” interference.

 

Regarding the technology itself, it will be chosen by operators based on economic arguments. The coexistence can be first addressed by operator coordination and the protocols will further help. We are all aware that there is no perfect solution. 11y has defined a better energy detection level, however it is far from being perfect because the system shall first work and be economically viable. FCC did not defined what “coexistence” means and actually what we are looking for are just “mitigation” techniques.

 

Regards,

Mariana J


From: Kenneth Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:49 PM
To: Mariana Goldhamer; Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx; david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx; eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx; john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: FW: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

It’s not clear my reply made it to everyone the first time.

 

Ken

 


From: Kenneth Stanwood [mailto:KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:37 AM
To: STDS-802-19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.19] 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

I am still very concerned about the insistence to remove the channel occupancy metric without an appropriate replacement.  As was discussed in Denver, it is very valuable to assess how a system implementing one technology may block the use of all or a part of the channel by systems implementing other technologies.

 

In particular, it is important to see how a technology blocks access by others when the first technology has little or no actual data to send.  As we are already aware, any 802.16/WiMAX based technology should be suspect due to the designed operation of unmodified WiMAX systems.  Modified WiMAX systems should be required to prove they do not limit access by other technologies under low demand situations within the WiMAX system.  NextWave proposed the channel occupancy metric in question because inclusion of that metric in our simulations was key to understanding and modifying the WirelessMAN-UCP protocol in section 6.4 of 802.16h so that it would not excessively block access by similar channel bandwidth 802.11 systems when the 802.16 system had low demand.  It is not clear to me that the WirelessMAN-CBP protocol described in section 15 of 802.16h has addressed this problem.  Lack of an appropriate metric could hinder the identification and resolution of issues in currently proposed systems and systems likely to be proposed in the future.

 

I understand the reluctance to accept the metric.  At NextWave we had heated internal debate over whether or not to include the metric in our simulations, but when the results came in and the value was overwhelmingly apparent argument ceased.

 

At a minimum, if a throughput metric is used instead, there must be a solid requirement that system A’s impact on the throughput of system B must be simulated for a variety of cases where system A has low or no demand.

 

Thanks,

Ken

 


From: Mariana Goldhamer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:59 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx; Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx; aghasemi@xxxxxx; bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx; dlubar@xxxxxxxx; david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dougchan@xxxxxxxxx; eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx; fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx; john.sydor@xxxxxx; Kathy Sohrabi; Kenneth Stanwood; Naftali Chayat; Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Piggin; Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx; Ziv Nuss
Subject: RE: 3650 MHz Minutes - way forward

 

Hi All,

 

Regarding the yesterday teleconf and the way forward:

 

1. In my view metrics which do not have a clear interpretation as coexistence criteria shall be omitted, and this is the case of the Medium occupancy where two opposite target criteria were proposed by Paul and Eldad (Paul – 50% of time in case of two collocated systems – was no agreement on this, because is ignoring the antenna separation, powers, modulation, coding, etc.; Eldad 100% or similar occupancy). In addition it is not defined yet what the occupancy is, and we spent 45min. just with a discussion on the different possibilities. This in addition to the time spent in the meeting.

 

2. I (and probably many others) appreciate the straightforward metrics and criteria proposed by Richard, looking at the relative throughput degradation of the two systems as result of interference. Similar degradation means acceptable coexistence.

 

3. The hidden nodes are also important, being the exact image of the “harmful interference”. The reception of the signal is directly affected by the hidden nodes. The hidden node statistics is “hidden” in the averaged throughput results, and this is why we need this metrics in addition to the throughput.

 

4. I think that for the next teconf. we need to invest the time in advancing the CA document itself. We need to discuss the simulation results and agree on the CA text.

 

5. We spent already more than one year on this issue (Apr. 07 is the date of the first parameter document), in meetings and bi-weekly teleconf. I hope that we will be able to finalize this process asap. We have committed for a much shorter process and the planned resources have gone. Probably the 802.19 guys have also other issues to address.

 

Regards,

 

Mariana


From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:43 AM
To: 802. 19 TAG (stds-802-19@xxxxxxxx); Adrian Stephens (Adrian.P.Stephens@xxxxxxxxx); Amir Ghasemi (aghasemi@xxxxxx); Baowei Ji (bji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Bruce Kraemer (bkraemer@xxxxxxxxxxx); Dan Lubar (dlubar@xxxxxxxx); David Grandblaise (david.grandblaise@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Dick Roy (dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Douglas Chan (dougchan@xxxxxxxxx); Eldad Perahia (eldad.perahia@xxxxxxxxx); Fanny Mlinarsky (fm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Ivan Reede (I_reede@xxxxxxxxxxxx); John Sydor (john.sydor@xxxxxx); Kathy Sohrabi (ksohrabi@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Kenneth Stanwood (KStanwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Mariana Goldhamer; Naftali Chayat; Nat Natarajan (Nat.Natarajan@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Paul Piggin (ppiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx); Sadek, Ahmed; Shahar Hauzner; Shellhammer, Steve; Wuxu Yong (wuxuyong@xxxxxxxxxx); Ziv Nuss
Subject: 3650 MHz Minutes

 

Minutes posted on the server,

 

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.19/file/08/19-08-0002-11-0000-conference-call-minutes.doc

 

Steve

 



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************



************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43).
************************************************************************************