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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 11-22-0349-02-00be-cr-discussion-of-nstr-and-emlsr



Hello Yunbo,

 

Following Minyoung’ s questions/comments, I’d like to repeat my (and Sindhu’s) question regarding eMLSR not being able to deliver all offered traffic in case of 3Mbps (and even 1Mbps) case (on slide 7). Your explanation was “it is because of huge overhead” associated with eMLSR mode of operation. I do not agree with that explanation.

 

You said that traffic rate of 3Mbps is the input traffic at each MLD in both DL and UL direction, which mean every device has 3Mbps delivered to its peer device (STA has 3Mbps tpt be delivered to the AP and AP has 3 Mbps delivered to each STA) Total load is 96Mbps = 3Mbps*(2 AP*8STAs*2 streams in DL auld UL) which is confirmed by total delivered tpt in NSTR case

If you model your traffic as CBR, it mean a single frame arrive to the MAC every 4ms. In case of eMLSR, AP or STA need ~370us to deliver 1 (one) 1.5Kb packet in a single transaction including MuRTS + CTS + DATA + BA. If you need to deliver 4 packets (aggregated) in one AMPDU – you will need a bit more time, about 400us.

 

So, just theoretically,  if AP serve eMLSR devices in round robin fashion (i.e. one by one) on ONE link, AP will deliver all buffered traffic in DL direction within frame interarrival time.  

In your sims you have 2 APs , each serving 8 clients operating on 2 (TWO) links.  So AP has a freedom of selecting different client for frame exchange, i.e. if it is sending or receiving data to/from eMLSR STA1 it can always serve other eMLSR STA2 on another link, so this is not a bottleneck.

 

You also indicated that you use MU-MIMO in both DL and UL meaning a single AP in a single transaction can serve 2 clients at a time on one link or potentially 4 client at a time on two links.

 

With that in mind I simply see no chance for eMLSR (in fact for any other mode of operation not to deliver buffered stream with that tiny input data. I do not see how overhead play such significant role here.

 

Even more, if you take a look at 1Mbps load case you will see same problem, eMLSR does not deliver all buffered data. The packet arrival pattern (assuming CBR) is 1.5Kb packet every 12ms. This is huge. So with all possible imperfections set to max values like switching delays (128us)/blindness recovery(5ms max)/Initial frame overhead (200us max) is simply impossible that buffered traffic of total 32Mbps cannot be delivered on time.

 

 

I see the only reason for not delivering that traffic – and you mentioned it on slides for Delay simulation  - the MPDU lifetime. For delay sims it is set for 20ms. May be you use it somehow for throughput sims as well. If so, well… it is a) strange to use it for throughput sims b) if it used and it is really 20ms…. I simply do not see how you can reach 20ms delay for a packet with such lightly loaded scenario.

 

Dmitry

 

 

From: Minyoung Park <mpark.ieee@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:04 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] 11-22-0349-02-00be-cr-discussion-of-nstr-and-emlsr

 

Hello Yunbo,

 

As I commented during the call, you are not doing apple to apple comparison. A NSTR MLD has two fully capable radios (two independent PHY/MAC blocks) whereas a single radio non-AP MLD operating in EMLSR has one fully capable radio. The NSTR MLD is close to double the complexity/cost of the non-AP MLD that has the EMLSR capability. The complexity/cost has to be considered in the comparison.

 

Another observation is that a NSTR non-AP MLD with two 1x1 radios is actually less spectral efficient than 2x2 non-AP MLD in EMLSR mode since the NSTR non-AP MLD is using two 80 MHz links with 1ss on each link whereas the non-AP MLD in EMLSR mode is using one 80 MHz link with 2ss. For a busy network environment with many OBSSs that are not synchronized on both links (i.e. busy/idle are not synchronized on both links), this becomes a bigger problem to the NSTR non-AP MLD since most of time the two links are not idle at the same time and only 1ss can be used on one idle link whereas for the non-AP MLD in EMLSR mode it can still use 2ss on one idle link.

 

I also couldn't understand clearly why delay results are so high. There will be many cases where a STA can sync to the medium by receiving a frame from its own BSS or OBSS, by transmitting an RTS based on the current 11be spec, perform CCA if a STA is not doing 2ss tx, soliciting uplink traffic with a trigger frame, etc.

 

Regards,

Minyoung  

 

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:48 AM Liyunbo <00001846a2e5e0c1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear all,

 

Thanks for your discussion during the presentation. I initiate this email thread to further discussion for doc 22/349. Please let me know your questions and comments if you don’t have time to express them during the call.

 

Here are some response to Minyoung and Shubho’s questions.

 

Q1: Whether switch delay of EMLSR affect the blindness in UL short PPDU transmission?

A1: when EMLSR MLD do UL transmission on link1, whether link 2 will enter blindness mode depends on the total duration of switch delay period and UL PPDU length. Assuming the UL PPDU length is 50 us, a 22 us switching delay (22+50=72us, which is the duration of MediumSyncThreshold) will trigger link 2 enter blindness mode. So you can see that link 2 will enter blindness mode even it is a small switching delay and short UL PPDU.

 

Q2: For blindness, can EMLSR be same as NSTR?

A2: No. For DL data transmission, NSTR will not enter blindness mode because most BA will shorter than 72us. But EMLSR will enter blindness for sure, because the initial control frame exchange already larger than 72us. For UL short packet transmission, NSTR will enter blindness when UL PPDU length >=72us, while EMLSR will not enter blindness when UL length >= (72-swithing delay). Consider the PHY preamble and switching  delay, you can see that EMLSR will very easy to enter blindness even for short UL packet.

 

Q3: Why complexity is not considered in the presentation?

A3: The main purpose of this presentation is to show the performance of EMLSR and NSTR. Because performance is a very important factor for people to judge a feature. For complexity, I don’t think it is an easy to compare, it relates to a lot of implementation details. Here I want to point out one more benefit of NSTR. There are full radios on both links for NSTR, so it is very flexible for a non-AP MLD to operate as STR (when AP MLD set up two links with enough frequency gap) or NSTR (when AP MLD set up two links very close). But EMLSR MLD can not switch between STR and EMLSR even AP set up two links with enough frequency gap.

 

Regards,

Yunbo

 


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


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


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