Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control duri

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

Dear all,

This is Youngsoo Yuk from LG Electronics.

About the ranging resource issues,

Basically I also think that to share the ranging resource is best for congestion control.

Since long period for ranging means higher access priority,

to mitigate the concentrated access trial in a ranging opportunity,

additional load distribution schemes should be provided.

The management of ranging load control is to change the number of ranging resource according to the average ranging load.

However the problem is that the allocation of ranging resource is not always possible.

One Ranging channel requires 2 subbands (8 LRU) : 5% of total UL resource with 5:3 configuration.

And, max 1 ranging channel per frame ( dynamic ranging can be considered also).

And, with more than 2 codes, miss detection/false alarm probabilities increase too high.

In my simulation results, with 30000 MSs, 1 ranging channel per super frame,

Average number of ranging codes per ranging channel

0.17 (1 event/MS/hour), 0.337 (1 event/MS/30min.), 0.9745 (1 event/MS/10 min.), 1.99 (1 event/MS/1 min.)

And, ratio of contention (%) was

0.2 (1 event/MS/hour), 0.2 (1 event/MS/30min.), 7.4 (1 event/MS/10 min.), 32 (1 event/MS/1 min.)

I’m not sure whether it will be serious to 16m AMS.

In addition, the scheme with different ranging interval, because of concentration of ranging trial, the contention ratio increase.

(e.g. 7.4 è 12.7 (1 event/MS/10 min.)) è It requires additional scheme for access distribution.

The dedicated M2M ranging resource, may be a waste of ranging resource.

(usually maximum utilization of random access channel is limited by 30% with 1% contention ratio)

How many resource, How many MS can be considered.

From the point, I prefer to discuss the semi-dynamic load control by using access restriction by some amount of time period.

I’m sorry for my not providing clear comment. But, after I finished all of my simulation, I’ll provide more detailed opinion on the issues.

Thanks

Youngsoo

From: Wei-Chieh Huang [mailto:aj@ITRI.ORG.TW]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:42 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Hyunjeong and all

Thanks for your comments.

Firstly, M2M devices are supposed to operate in idle mode at most time.

In addition, M2M devices or M2M groups with different applications may perform network reentry from idle mode simultaneously.

In order to allow some delay-sensitive M2M devices or M2M groups to enter network more quickly, I think that M2M devices with different applications shall have different ranging parameters.

Accordingly, priority shall be introduced into ranging process for M2M devices.

In my opinion, dividing ranging resources is not necessary for M2M device performing network access with priority. M2M devices with various priority levels may share the same ranging resources but have different ranging parameters.

Finally, the number of priority levels and related ranging parameters could be discussed and then defined in future.

BR,

Wei-Chieh Huang

寄件者: Hyunjeong Kang [hyunjeong.kang@samsung.com]
寄件日期: 2011年02月16日下午 04:33
收件者: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
主旨: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jin, Wei-Chieh and all,

Wei-Chieh, thank you for give your opinion about priority factor.

I have more questions as below.

First, could you give more information why we should classify access priority level only for M2M service flow?

The QoS characteristics are different per M2M service, but I’m not sure it should be solved by access priority not “QoS parameter including priority”.

Second, do you have any analysis how different type of M2M service gets a benefit to access with this access priority?

I wonder dividing ranging resources for this prioritized access classes is better than sharing the resources.

Please note that in the existing standard, “emergency call” or “NS/EP” is supported without any access priority from a ranging resource point of view.

Third, do you have any reference to decide a priority for each M2M service, i.e., how we should decide the value for each priority access class?

Regards,

Hyunjeong

From: Jin Lee [mailto:jin1.lee@LGE.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:57 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Lei and all,

Thanks you all for sharing your thoughts.

The concept of priority factor may be similar to one of access class defined in 16m. However, as Jaesun mentioned,

current access class is specified for a service flow in connected state. So I am not sure how we can map these two.

For now, let's discuss high level texts first by consensus before going into details. (e.g., use lookup table, SCD message or else)

So I suggest to discuss the following texts fisrt as baseline. Once agreed, we can describe further procedure.

An M2M priority level is used for prioritizing access requests during the ranging procedure for network reentry from idle mode.

Ranging opportunities may be assigned differently to M2M devices or M2M groups according to their M2M priority level.

Comments are welcome.

Thanks,

-Jin

----- Original Message -----

From: lei zhou

To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:53 PM

Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Wei-Chieh,Jaesun and all:

Although access class is used for BR, I think access class is related on ranging access. So I think we can use the concept of access class in 16m for network entry and reentry. For how to use this parameter, Let's think about it more.

We need have the common view on the way forward of priority access. Any comments are welcome!

BR

Lei

------- Original Message -------

Sender : Wei-Chieh Huang<aj@ITRI.ORG.TW>

Date : 二月 16, 2011 14:23 (GMT+09:00)

Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Lei and all

Thanks for your comment

To my understanding, 16e and 16m does not specify the ranging access with priority.

Thus, I am not sure how to reuse the parameters for M2M devices performing network entry or re-entry.

BR,

Wei-Chieh

From: lei zhou [mailto:l.zhou@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:53 AM
To: 黃偉傑; STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Wei-Chieh and all:

I have mentioned that we can reuse the parameter access class in 16m for priority access control in CC#2 of DEV-RG. BS can control access load based on the parameter access class.

Any comments are welcome.

BR

Lei

------- Original Message -------

Sender : Wei-Chieh Huang<aj@ITRI.ORG.TW>

Date : 二月 16, 2011 11:31 (GMT+09:00)

Title : Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all

Thank you for your comment.

I think that a pre-defined lookup table can be well defined in the standard document.

An M2M device determines the ranging parameters according to the lookup table.

The lookup table size and related parameters could be further discussed and then defined.

In addition, I am not sure the meaning of the “worst case”.

Could you please explain it more clearly?

Best regards,

Wei-Chieh Huang

From: 차재선 [mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:19 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Wi-Chieh and all

Thank you for your comment.

I agree with you. To add some parameters into SCD message increases overhead. Then, where do you want to define a table about ranging parameters? Do you mean that a priority table should be statically defined as a system parameters?

I'm not sure how many priority factors are needed a this moment. In my guess, one or two priority factors are needed at early deployment stage. But, if many M2M services with different QoS requirements are supported in 802.16 networks, then more priority factors may be needed.

Do we have to provide a static table considering the worst case?

BR,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Wei-Chieh Huang" <aj@ITRI.ORG.TW>
From Date: 2011-02-15 오후 3:10:08
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all

I believe it's more flexible to include ranging information in SCD.

However, it also increases overhead. In addition, is “more flexible” necessary?

I think that a simple pre-defined table indicating ranging information shall be sufficient.

Therefore, only the priority factor needs to be assigned before the devices entering idle mode.

Best regards,

Wei-Chieh Huang and Ping-Heng Kuo

From: 차재선 [mailto:jscha@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:04 PM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Lei and all

Thank you for your response.

Yes, there are two trigger modes for network reentry. So, I would like to hear other member's opinion on the use of single mechanism for both cases.

If authors of contributions (C0008, C0009, C0017, C0026) give us feedbacks on the high-level operation, then we can try to provide the consolidated contribution.

Regarding ranging information, Yes, you are right. Ranging information is carried by S-SFH SP3. But, there are only 3 types of ranging information (initial, HO, BR). We can further divide ranging information only for M2M devices in SCD. Ranging information in SCD may be subset of ranging information for human devices or may be seperated from ranging information for human devices. In my opinion, it's more flexible to include ranging information in SCD.

BR,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

From: lei zhou [mailto:l.zhou@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:33 AM
To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear Jaesun and all:

Thank you for Jaesun's initializing discussion on network reentry.

I am Lei from Samsung.

I have the similar view on network reentry trigger with Jaesun. There are two trigger modes for network reentry inculding network and terminals (MS and Group).For network reentry triggered M2M group,we need uniform some attributes including Group ID,member ID, group delagate and group member of M2M group.

Btw,16m S-SFH SP3 has carriered ranging information. Any comments are welcome.

BR

Lei

------- Original Message -------

Sender : 차재선<jscha@etri.re.kr>

Date : 二月 14, 2011 19:15 (GMT+09:00)

Title : [STDS-802-16] [16p PWR RG - NE #1] Discussion on access control during network reentry from idle mode

Dear all

I'm Jaesun Cha from ETRI.

I have uploaded a new contribution regarding access control in the upload server (C802.16p-rg-11/0035). So, I sent this e-mail to inform you of the new contribution and to discuss access control related contributions including my contribution.

According to Contribution #33r2, there are 5 contributions regarding access control (including my contribution). Most of them propose an assignment of additional access control information but assignment method and detailed information are different from one another.

So, I would like to suggest to discuss a high-level piture on access control method before going into detailed access control information. For example, How does an ABS indicate any additional information for ranging process? When does an ABS assign an additional parameter for ranging process?

Once an aggrement on this high-level operation is made, we can go further to discuss any detailed access control information.

Here is my opinion on access control.

I agree that access congestion may happen after group paging. But, although there is no paging, access control may happen. If an AMS has UL data to be transmitted during idle mode, it will perform network reentry by transmitting a ranging code. In smart metering use case, many devices may have same report period, which means that many smart metering devices will perform ranging process at the same time.

So, I think we have to provide the same access control mechanism for network reentry triggered by a network as well as by an AMS.

For doing that, I proposes to transmit system information regarding access control for M2M devices through SCD message and to assign an index to each M2M device during idle mode entry procedure. The assigned index indicates access control information (ranging information) to be used during future network reentry. The same index may be assigned to different paging group or different index may be assigned to different devices which belonging to the same M2M group. Of course, this index may be updated or overrided by a paging message.

Anyone who is interested in access control please share your opinion through this e-mail thread.

Any comments on my suggestion or my contribution are welcomed.

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Jaesun Cha

Senior Engineer

Wireless Access Technology Research Team

Mobile Telecommunication Research Laboratory

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute

TEL: +82-42-860-5587, FAX: +82-42-861-1966

-----------------------------------------------------

-----원본 메시지-----
From: "Kiseon Ryu" <kiseon.ryu@LGE.COM>
From Date: 2011-02-14 오전 8:50:43
To: "STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Cc:
Subject: [STDS-802-16] [802.16p][PWR RG] Summary of 1st PWR RG CC

Dear 16p members,

Thanks to all of you for joining the first PWR RG conference call and sharing much valuable opinions.

I’ve uploaded the meeting summary capturing Q&A discussion during the call (80216p-rg-11_0034.doc) to the upload server.

Here are some key issues and action items of today's call:

1. Idle Mode Operation

[IDLE#1] New Group Paging Concept (Including hierarchical paging): Need to clarify its gain?

[IDLE#2] Modified & Additional LU mechanism (Cell-/Timer-based): Is new definition necessary?

[IDLE#3] Longer Paging Cycle

Hyunjeong, Soojung, and Giwon presented their contribution. I would like to ask someone among you volunteering to lead the harmonization on each topic.

2. Network Reentry from Idle Mode

[NE#1] Definition of Waiting Time before UL ranging for network re-entry

           a. Waiting time after receiving paging: Need to clarify its gain?

           b. Different ranging opportunities for M2M group with priority: Increased congestions to low priority group?

[NE#2] Dedicated ranging code and/or ranging region for M2M (e.g., S-RNG): Impact to legacy MS and its overhead of dedicated region?

Jin, Chiwoo, Ping-Heng, Andreas, Yu-Chuan, Wei-Chieh presented their contribution. I would like to ask someone among you volunteering to lead the harmonization on each topic.

3. Device collaboration

[DC#1] on-/off-state frame control for DC support: Need to clarify the power saving gain from device collaboration?

Jinsoo presented the contribution. Jinsoo, could you initiate harmonization activities with other members?

If there is any other issue, please let us know.

* Notes:

1. For all members who are interested in the above 6 issues, please share your opinion.

2. The initiation of the e-mail discussion, please use the HEADER (e.g., [IDLE#1], [NE#2]...) in the e-mail title.

Regards,

Kiseon Ryu

PWR RG Chair

本信件可能包含工?院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，?請銷?此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.

本信件可能包含工?院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，?請銷?此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.

本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards

Dr.Lei Zhou (周雷) ,Ph.D.

Senior Engineer,

Mobile WIMAX Evolution Standards,

Advanced Standard Research Group,

China SAMSUNG Telecom R&D Center,

12/F Zhongdian Fazhan Building, No.9,Xiaguang Li,

Chaoyang District Beijing,China 100125

TEL:(010)5925-3333 Ext.3112

FAX:(010)8468-1366

E-MAIL:l.zhou@samsung.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Best Regards

Dr.Lei Zhou (周雷) ,Ph.D.

Senior Engineer,

Mobile WIMAX Evolution Standards,

Advanced Standard Research Group,

China SAMSUNG Telecom R&D Center,

12/F Zhongdian Fazhan Building, No.9,Xiaguang Li,

Chaoyang District Beijing,China 100125

TEL:(010)5925-3333 Ext.3112

FAX:(010)8468-1366

E-MAIL:l.zhou@samsung.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

=

本信件可能包含工研院機密資訊，非指定之收件者，請勿使用或揭露本信件內容，並請銷毀此信件。
This email may contain confidential information. Please do not use or disclose it in any way and delete it if you are not the intended recipient.