Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
G’day 802.11 WG, The IEEE 802.11 Coexistence SC has been monitoring issues related to Wi-Fi coexistence, especially in the 5 GHz and 6 GHz bands, for the last 5 years. Its work has been very successful in so far as it has had an important influence
(directly or indirectly) in avoiding the worst coexistence outcomes for Wi-Fi:
However, the coexistence situation is still not resolved and there are a variety of ongoing risks, particularly related to coexistence between Wi-Fi and LAA/NR-U in the 5/6 GHz bands. While handwaving and simulations suggested coexistence
would be reasonable on “average”, it turns out that many environments are not “average”. The University of Chicago’s measurements of real (not “average”) LAA deployments suggest that LAA sometimes ignores Wi-Fi, at least in the environments that were measured.
It appears the underlying issue is that the use of energy detection as the sole mechanism by LAA for coexisting with Wi-Fi does not work very well, probably due to classic hidden station issues. Of course, these measurements only matter if LAA is widely deployed. If LAA is not widely deployed, we can all breath a big sigh of relief and get on with making the next generations of Wi-Fi even better than today. The evidence so far
suggests that LAA might not be as widely deployed as some hoped. The number of operators who have deployed it in the last three years has not changed from 9 (globally), and it is not clear they have deployed it widely. The number of operators considering LAA
has also remained steady for the last three years at 27 (globally). Given the slow deployment of LAA, it is possible that the 5G community is waiting for NR-U. It is quite likely that NR-U will have similar coexistence issues as LAA, but again this will only
matter if NR-U is widely deployed. At the Coex SC meeting in July 2022, this situation was highlighted, along with some questions. There were few answers in July, but answers to these questions will help direct the future work of the Coex SC. This e-mail is requesting members
to think about these questions, and, at the very least, be ready to discuss potential answers at the next Coex SC meeting in Sept 2022. An even better outcome would be submissions from multiple members in relation to these questions. The questions:
I would like to run a session at the meeting in September 2022 where members discuss these and similar questions (hopefully based on additional submissions). I then plan to run a series of straw polls to better understand the perspectives
of the membership and so set a platform for future progress. Please contact me if you plan to make a submission or if you have any thoughts on these questions … Andrew Myles To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1 |