RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
Rainer,
I do not recall of the discussion regarding frequency offset. I
guess my question to you is,
Does 15.4a automatically select a channel so that it is never
co-channel with 802.11?
If this is true then there is no need to evaluate co-channel
interference. However, if that is not the case then I would think it
would make sense to look at co-channel interference.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:50 AM
To: Shellhammer, Steve
Cc: Benjamin A. Rolfe; pat.kinney@ieee.org; Jay Bain; John Lampe;
Kyung-Kuk Lee; stds-802-19@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
Steve,
thanks for your response.
Please see my answers below.
Best regards
Rainer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:15 PM
> To: Rainer Hach
> Cc: Benjamin A. Rolfe; pat.kinney@ieee.org; Jay Bain; John
> Lampe; Kyung-Kuk Lee; stds-802-19@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
>
>
> Rainer,
>
> A few comments on the section coexistence with 11g.
>
> 1. I think the approach you took incorporating the coding gain into
> the
> BER formula is a reasonable approximation. Clearly, it
> is not exact,
> but probably close enough.
>
>>>>> Thanks for the confirmation!
>
> 2. The titles for the plots on page 16-18 are labeled "@6 MHz" when
> I a
> more accurate title would be "@ 6 Mb/s" since the data
> rate changes
> not the bandwidth.
>>>>> Thanks for hint. We will correct this.
>
> 3. I am glad to see you included curves for 10% duty cycle.
>
> 4. In these curves (and also all the other curves in the document)
> you do
> not include co-channel interference (Foffset = 0 MHz).
> Is there are
> reason for that? It seems like it is possible for it to occur
> in practice, since for example 802.11 can be deployed to occupy
> three channels (1, 6 and 11).
>
>>>>> After our dicussion in Jacksonville I had the undestanding that
you agree that in case of all 3 nonoverlapping channels being >>>>>
occupied by 802.11 the reasonable strategy for CSS would be to use one
of the overlapping channels inbetween two nonoverlapping >>>>> channels.
Did I get this wrong?
>
> 5. Update the date on the document.
>
>>>>> Sorry for the wrong date!
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:17 AM
> To: Shellhammer, Steve
> Cc: Benjamin A. Rolfe; pat.kinney@ieee.org; Jay Bain; John
> Lampe; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
>
> Steve,
> I would like to notify you that 15-06-0214-01-004a-CSS-CA-document.doc
> has been posted to the wirless server.
> Analysis for the coexistence between CSS and 11g has been
> appended in this revision. Additional frequency offset
> values and duty cycle assumptions of 1% and 10% have been
> used in the new section. Some details und curve shapes might
> still change but basically that's what we intend to provide.
> If you agree that this analysis is sufficient for 11g, we
> will update the analyses for the other systems accordingly.
> Please take a look and let us know. Best regards, Rainer
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:01 PM
> > To: Rainer Hach; Sheung Li
> > Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; stds-802-19@ieee.org;
> > Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> >
> >
> > Rainer,
> >
> > That should work for an AWGN channel. I we have some
> > simulation results that would even be better.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:33 AM
> > To: Shellhammer, Steve; Sheung Li
> > Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; stds-802-19@ieee.org;
> > Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> >
> > Steve, Sheung,
> > Coming back to the question for a BER equation for 11g I
> > wonder whether the following would make sense: Identify the
> > modulation and code rate for the data rate in question (e.g
> > 16QAM, R=1/2 for 24Mbit/s), calculate the partial BER (for on
> > subcarrier) by using the textbook equation and reasonable
> > coding gain for a convolutional code with k=7 and finally
> > calculate the BER by assuming the 53 subcarriers to transport
> > independent bit streams. Would this approach be acceptable?
> > Best regards, Rainer
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:33 PM
> > > To: Rainer Hach; Sheung Li
> > > Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; stds-802-19@ieee.org;
> > > Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> > > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > >
> > >
> > > Rainer,
> > >
> > > I don't recall my statement about mid range, but that
> > > was two weeks ago. Yes, if one is trying to represent
> > > typical then 24 Mb/s seems like a reasonable choice.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:13 AM
> > > To: Sheung Li; Shellhammer, Steve
> > > Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; stds-802-19@ieee.org;
> > > Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> > > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > >
> > > Sheung,
> > > I am actually trying to get a better understanding of 11g. In the
> > > 802.11 handbook, it says that the mandatory data rates
> for OFDM are
> > > 6,12 and 24 Mbits/s. The 54Mbit/s is optional but
> required for Wi-Fi
> > > certification. Is this information correct?
> > >
> > > Steve, were you thinking of the 24Mbit/s OFDM mode when you
> > > suggested the mid range data rate in our discussion in
> Jacksonville?
> > > Best regards, Rainer
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sheung Li [mailto:sheung@atheros.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:54 PM
> > > > To: Rainer Hach
> > > > Cc: sshellha@qualcomm.com; pat.kinney@ieee.org;
> > > > stds-802-19@ieee.org; Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com
> > > > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what information you need. Most of it should
> > be on the
> > > > IEEE802 CD-ROM.
> > > >
> > > > The optional 22Mbps rates don't use OFDM, and are not widely
> > > > supported, so CA analysis isn't required. You should
> > take a look at
> > > > the extremes of the mandatory CCK-OFDM rates such as 6Mbps and
> > > > 54Mbps.
> > > >
> > > > ==S
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
> > > > > Sent: Fri 5/26/2006 1:18 AM
> > > > > To: Shellhammer, Steve
> > > > > Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; Kyung-Kuk Lee;
> > > > >stds-802-19@ieee.org; Sheung Li; Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com
> > > > > Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve,
> > > > > thank you for your email.
> > > > > Does it mean that there is no 22Mb/s using OFDM?
> > > > > If so, which data rate do you feel is the most relevant
> > to assume
> > > > >for 11g?
> > > > > Also, could you please let me know the email address
> of Sheung
> > > > >Li? Best regards,
> > > > > Rainer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:05 PM
> > > > >> To: Rainer Hach
> > > > >> Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; Kyung-Kuk Lee;
> > > > >>stds-802-19@ieee.org;
> > > > >> sli@sibeam.com; Joseph.Levy@interdigital.com
> > > > >> Subject: RE: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Rainer,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IEEE 802.11g is primarily based on OFDM. There is a 22
> > > Mb/s PHY
> > > > >>using PBCC. However, that PHY is optional and not widely
> > > > >>deployed. So my personal opinion is that analysis of
> > > > >> the 22 Mb/s PHY is probably unnecessary. However,
> > > > >> consideration of the OFDM PHY would be very important.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If you need some more details on the OFDM PHY you might
> > > be able
> > > > >>to get some assistance from Sheung Li our liaison to
> > 802.11. I
> > > > >>believe BER curves should be available.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Comment to TAG: In general, maybe if we can start to
> > > compile some
> > > > >>of this information we can put it in a common
> > > > >> place. How about the document that Joseph Levy started?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Steve
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Rainer Hach [mailto:R.Hach@nanotron.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:09 AM
> > > > >> To: Shellhammer, Steve
> > > > >> Cc: pat.kinney@ieee.org; Kyung-Kuk Lee
> > > > >> Subject: CA analysis between CSS and 11g
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Steve,
> > > > >> thanks for your all your input in Jacksonville.
> > Considering 11g
> > > > >>with 22MBPS I am looking for a BER or PER
> > > > >> equation. One approch could be to figure out how many
> > > > >>sub
> > > > >> carriers with which mdoulation and coding are used and
> > > > >>then
> > > > >> combine the BERs for each subcarrier. Is that
> > > > >>appropriate? If
> > > > >> so, can you help me with the assumptions on subcarriers
> > > > >>etc.
> > > > >> out or can you tell me somebody who could possibly do so
> > > > >>or
> > > > >> recommend some document besides the standard itself?
> > > > >>Thanks!
> > > > >> Best regards, Rainer
> > > > >>
> > > > >> www.nanotron.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>