Re: [STDS-802-16] LE Ad-hoc - BS-BS Interference - Call for solut ions
Usually 802.11 systems are indoors and the likelihood of having an 802.11 AP
antenna in close proximity to an 802.16 BS antenna is quite low, if not
zero. 802.11 systems operate in un-licensed bands, typically 5.8 and/or 2.4
GHz, and there are rules established, at least in Europe, for co-existence.
I would suggest the group investigate the co-existence rules currently
established for Europe as a starting point, it may prove useful. Also, in
my opinion it is highly unlikely there would be two competing operators
sharing the same tower, even in un-licensed bands.
Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Itzik Kitroser [mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:57 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] LE Ad-hoc - BS-BS Interference - Call for
solutions
Marianna,
I understand that from your calculations, a feasible 802.16
solution will be realistic only by BS coordination.
What if you have several 802.11 APs, or any other technology
using same bands, close to your BS, with no apparent means of
coordination?
Itzik.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
Marianna
> Goldhammer
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 18:39
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] LE Ad-hoc - BS-BS Interference -
Call for solutions
> Importance: High
>
>
> Dear Folks,
>
> I just finished with the analysis of BS-BS Interference, NO
> synchronization, for 5.8GHz.
> Igal requested the addition of 2.4GHz, but meanwhile did not
> provide System Parameters.
>
> 1. The summary of the results is:
>
> A. co-location: not possible, the Rx radio will be
saturated;
>
> B. minimum distance between BSs, due to adjacent channel
> interference, for 1dB RSL degradation and 10dB fade margin:
> - directional antennae and no co-ordination: 3.7km
> - one omni and one directional antenna: 1.64km
> This means that if a system is up and running, and another
BS
> will be installed at a distance lower than mentioned
above, the
> remote users will loose connection (service disruption).
>
> C. minimum distance between BSs, co-channel interference:
> more than 60km, for both cases. Same consequences as
> above.
>
> All the computation details and explanatory figures are in
the
> attached document.
>
> 2. I think that the problem to be resolved is clear, for
this scenario.
> If somebody thinks otherwise, please let me know. Lets keep
> focus and go forward, to address, according to the charter:
> "Identification of techniques which may mitigate the
problem,
> such as dynamic frequency selection, time co-ordination,
> creation of interference free periods, etc;"
> So please send to the reflector your solutions; I have
added to
> the document a page were we will centralize the comments
and
> replay comments; no need to use the commentary: for your
> convenience, I will centralize the e-mails.
>
> Comments already received(Zion,Phil,Duncan) are reflected
> there. I added my comment:
>
> "Use PHY sync of MAC Frames and Tx/Rx:
> Co-ordination possible: Frame start - PHY Sync marker and
MIB
> for Frame duration, Tx and Rx intervals.
> Co-ordination not possible (private use): PHY only
mechanism.
> Systems may use GPS or follow the Sync Markers of already
> deployed systems."
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Marianna
>
> P.S. If somebody can help, and make the computations for the
> remaining scenarios, will be really useful.
>
> Marianna Goldhammer
> IEEE 802.16 LE-Ad-hoc Chair
>
>
>
>
> This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com
>
>
**************************************************************
****
> ******************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been
scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
vandals &
> computer viruses.
>
**************************************************************
****
> ******************