Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Jianhan, I’m happy that we have some agreement
J I understand that some people see puncturing as a solution for avoiding radar or incumbent signals, but it is also aimed at dealing with OBSS as these are common
as well. My original purpose was to support 1001 & 1010 in P80 (or P160) only. However, seeing that the group is considering using a per-80MHz parking mechanism, including
per-80MHz puncturing signaling, I suggested to extend from P80 (or P160) to each 80MHz segment.
I’m OK with defining 1001 & 1010 for P80 only and leaving preamble puncture patterns for S80 as TBD. What do you think? BR, Oded From: Jianhan Liu [mailto:jianhanliu@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi Oded, Thanks for your email. I agree with you that even if the puncture modes you proposed are accepted in the 11be, RU aggregations for those punctured modes in OFDMA are not allowed so far. My question is that for OFDMA, transmitter can puncture EHT portion arbitrarily, say, no user is assigned to a certain RU. But for puncture preamble, it is more complicated. For example, it is allowed that a 242 RU is not assigned to any
user but the preamble corresponding to this 242 RU is still present, say, the primary 20MHz. So I am wondering how many preamble puncture modes we need to introduce to cover all the cases. I am OK with one hole puncture, but for two holes puncture, I am wondering
how useful it is since punctures are mostly for avoiding radar and incumbent signals. Thanks, Jianhan On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:14 AM Oded Redlich (TRC) <oded.redlich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |