Re: [STDS-802-16] a question on UGS
Using fixed locations drops us backwards two generations in BWA systems.
It has been shown numerous time over the past 5 years both through
simulations (albeit proprietary and unshared for the most part),
algorithm descriptions, and real systems in the field, that handling the
bursty nature of today's broadband traffic, especially with an adaptive
PHY, if most efficiently handled by dynamic scheduling. The map
overhead incurred by a good scheduler is less than the bandwidth waste
of a fixed allocation. Remember also that this is not a voice-only
system. If all you have is voice, a more simplistic approach works, but
there are already a lot of good systems designed specifically for voice.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: albanese@NET.INFOCOM.UNIROMA1.IT
[mailto:albanese@NET.INFOCOM.UNIROMA1.IT]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:16 AM
To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] a question on UGS
Hi all,
I think you could have an increased overhead (fragmentation...) and
scheduler
complexity in both cases:
- with the opportunity of a "permanent" assignment of the BW
- BW assignment on frame basis.
The increased overhead is a consequence of the lack in the available
bandwidth
and of scheduler design choices.
In any case, I think that a "permanent" assignment of the BW for the UGS
traffic
class can potentially be a good idea to improve system efficiency.
Best regards
Roberto Albanese
Quoting Itzik Kitroser <itzikk@RUNCOM.CO.IL>:
> Weidong,
>
> You need to think also about the consequences of going in your
approach, and
> possible effect on the scheduler it can cause.
>
> Taking your approach, the scheduler will have to map allocations
"around"
> multiple fixed allocations, which will not necessary be segmented
together,
> this can both increase the complexity of the scheduler and also add
more
> overhead both to the MAP (more entries when fragmenting) and
allocating more
> BW per request, again due to additional fragmentation header.
>
> Regards,
>
> Itzik.
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of weidong yang
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:35 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] a question on UGS
>
>
> Baraa,
>
> In this case, the overhead due to DL_MAP & UL_MAP IEs could be very
> substantial if lots of conversations are going on.
> (I did a search, and found this issue was raised in IEEE
C802.16e-04/368r2
> by KT & Korea University)
> I don't know whether other people also think this is a serious
problem.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Dabagh, Baraa [mailto:baraa.al.dabagh@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 4:05 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] a question on UGS
>
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of weidong yang
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 1:54 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] a question on UGS
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a question on UGS.
>
> After reading the 802.16-2004 document, I come to the understanding
>
> suppose we want to set up a voice conversation over 802.16-2004, in
every
> frame (let us assume
>
> the frame duration is 10 ms) where a downlink burst or an uplink
burst for
>
> that conversation is assigned, the assignment(s) has/have to be
signified
> through DL_MAP and UL_MAP,
>
> there isn't a way to make a "permanent" assignment for that
conversation, so
> the assignments don't have to
>
> be specifed each time in DL_MAP or UL_MAP. Is my understanding
correct?
>
>
>
> Weidong
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.