Re: [STDS-802-16] FW: 802.16 - Artificial limitations (was mesh vs multihop relay n etwo rks)
Panyuh, all,
Thank you for your explanations and discussions over Multihop relay and mesh.
At this moment, I would like all of you to refer to the 16j PAR and follow it as Panyuh advised.
At some later stage I believe we may add up more once one thing done.
By the way, instead of replying, I would recommend the questioner to refer to the tutorial
document we provided at the last March session #42 which is available as IEEE 802.16mmr-06/006
which I believe helps. several documents related to it would work as well.
best regards,
Mitsuo Nohara
Relay TG Chair
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mariana Goldhamer
>
>
> Hi Panyuh,
>
> I agree with every word you have written below, because you used different
> existing documents which give a good basis for your explanations.
>
> What I do not really like is that we continue to narrow the 802.16e market,
> based on the separation according to regulatory regimes. We see more and
> more small licensed spectrum allocations (20MHz/operator), which actually
> limit the BWA performance. The LE spectrum, when available, should be used
> for the infrastructure or outdoor coverage, including Relaying, as a
> complement to the Licensed solutions. We continue to negate the 500MHz in
> 5GHz (available almost world-wide) and to say NO, thank you, even if the
> spectrum is suitable for outdoor-to-outdoor links, and only partially used,
> it is not for us.
>
> I think that we should differentiate between the scope of a PAR (which give
> a focus to the Project) and the usage of the resulting MAC/PHY protocols for
> products addressing the variety of available spectrum.
>
> Can anybody explain, for example:
>
> - WHO can actually stop a MAC message or a PHY mode, defined in 802.16e, to
> be used in products addressing not-licensed regulatory regimes?
>
> - Why we extend the focus of a Project to what is implemented in the
> products?
>
> We should look how to put everything in order, make the standard compliant
> with the market requests, and repair asap the existing confusion and
> artificial limitations. I have some ideas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mariana
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panyuh [mailto:panyuh@SAMSUNG.COM]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:41 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] mesh vs multihop relay networks
>
>
>
> Opps, there are some typo. So I correct it as followings.
>
> Panyuh Joo
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Panyuh [mailto:panyuh@samsung.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:26 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] mesh vs multihop relay networks
>
>
>
> Dear Ramzi and all,
>
> If we read the PAR of MMR task group, it is easy to understand the relay is
> not related to the mesh network in 802.16-2004 at all.
>
> Because in the context of the 802.16-2004, the mesh topology is defined
> under unlicensed spectrum and using only OFDM as PHY layer.
>
> But, the 16 MMR is limited project for only an amendment of 16-2004 +
> 16e-2005 with licensed spectrum and it is definitely not related to mesh
> topology at all.
>
> So as to the context of 802.16 the MMR is amendment of PMP (point to
> multipoint) topology with licensed spectrum. So either OFDM or OFDMA or SCa
> PHY is in the scope of MMR, but only PMP with licensed spectrum use.[Panyuh]
> I believe these are the conclusion of MMR Study group.
>
> Please take a look at the PAR of 16 MMR : P802.16j
> <http://standards.ieee.org/board/nes/projects/802-16j.pdf>
>
> Thanks and regards.
>
> Panyuh Joo
>
> ============================
>
> Global Standards & Research
>
> Telecommunication R&D Center
>
> Telecommunication Network
>
> Samsung Electronics Co., LTD
>
> ===============================
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Jose Costa [mailto:costa@NORTEL.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:19 PM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] mesh vs multihop relay networks
>
>
>
> Hi Ramzi,
>
>
>
> A multihop relay network is generally a partial mesh network.
>
>
>
> Here are some definitions from the Preliminary draft new Recommendation
> ITU-R M.[8A/VOC.LAND.MOB] - Vocabulary of terms for the land mobile service
> ( Annex
> <http://www.itu.int/md/dologin_md.asp?lang=en&id=R03-WP8A-C-0376!N18!MSW-E>
> 18 to Doc. 8A/376 <http://www.itu.int/md/R03-WP8A-C-0376/en> ):
>
>
>
> A mesh network is a network in which there are two or more paths to any
> node.
>
> NOTE - There are two types of mesh networks: full mesh and partial mesh. In
> a full mesh every node is connected to every other node in the network. In a
> partial mesh some nodes may be organized in a full mesh scheme but others
> can only connect to some nodes in the network.
>
>
>
> A radio relay network is a network of relay stations.
>
> NOTE 1 - Relay networks can be one-hop or multi-hop. One-hop relays are
> implemented with P-P and/or P-MP techniques. Multi-hop relays are
> implemented using MP-MP techniques to form a mesh.
>
> NOTE 2 - The relay stations in a network can be fixed, nomadic or mobile.
>
>
>
> A relay station is a station that performs message/signal transfer without
> any reference to a user application.
>
>
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jos?
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: Ramzi Tka [mailto:ramzi.tka@GMAIL.COM]
> Sent: 26-May-06 07:35 AM
> To: STDS-802-16@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [STDS-802-16] mesh vs multihop relay networks
>
>
>
> Hi evryboby,
> Could anyone explain to me the difference between mesh networks and multihop
> relay networks !
> Thanks
>
>
>