Marek,
I think you've made a very good observation, some grant sizes will be
invalid because we will not have the ability to transmit in 16 ns (TQ)
granularity, OFDMA just isn't as flexible as good ol' optics. My
opinion is that the upper layers (above the MAC) will need to
understand the granularity that is allowed for in EPoC grants. IF not
then you will waste a great deal of resources because you will need to
round down to the nearest OFDM transmission bucket (or Resource Block
as has been proposed in numerous presentations).
Think of it this way. You have a CNU with a 2000 byte frame to
transmit. The CLT grants X TQs but the CNU, because of transmission
granularity can only use X-n TQs so nothing gets transmitted. Not a
good situation.
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
*From:* Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:49 AM
*To:* STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in todays
phy sub-task call
Avi,
Please note that granting is done in units of TQ, which is also
something that you would need to take into consideration in your
calculations. Not all combinations would be valid.
Furthermore, what you're effectively after is restriction on the size
of grants allocated to the CNU. For that to work, we do not need to
introduce yet another concept into the already loaded draft
Marek
*From:* Avi Kliger [mailto:akliger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:33 PM
*To:* STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in todays
phy sub-task call
Marek, Sanjay
A resource block would be a minimal unit of x symbols and y
subcarriers that can be detected by the receiver. (I prefer to use x
for symbols and y for subcarriers since we are using to the horizontal
axis for time and vertical for frequency).
In the latest proposal we had, we assumed y and x can be configurable
(per system, all CNUs using the same RB size), and minimum values for
y and x were 4 and 6, respectively. However we can think of ways to
reduce y further to be a single sub-carrier.
To answer Marek's questions: the conversion between granted times and
RBs would be done by the CNU as part of the 1D to 2D scheduling. As an
example, if the OFDMA symbol is 20 uSec long and has 4000 subcarrier,
each subcarrier/symbol can be translated to 20u/4000 = 5nSec (I am
omitting the CP size for the simplicity of the calculations). For the
case of x*y RBs, one RB unit is translated too x*y*5nSec, or 120nSec
for the case of x=6 and y=4.
Partial RBs are not possible.
The CLT would know the size of the RB as it is a fixed size.
The IFG should probably be configured to the size of at least one RB
to insure no collisions.
Avi
*From:* Sanjay Goswami [mailto:sanjay.goswami@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 6:02 PM
*To:* STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in todays
phy sub-task call
Marek,
Ethernet has a concept of Byte and also has a concept of minimum size
of a frame which can be transmitted to be considered a valid transmission.
Resource element and resource block are similar terms used by OFDMA
PHY. They are in no way or shape related to byte or minimum frame size
in Ethernet but conceptually they are similar.
My understanding is that a given CNU transmitter requires a minimum x
number of sub-carriers and a minimum y number of symbols for that
transmission to be successfully received at the CLT.
What I see you are stating is that can we get away with a single
subcarrier and a single symbol (called a resource element) as the
smallest unit.
Ed's presentation assumed x=1 and y>1 but TBD. I think PHY experts can
answer these questions better
1. What is the minimum value for x and y needed for a successful
transmission?
2. Given that y is same, does the incremental value of x has to be
same or can it be less?
Regards,
-Sanjay
On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:02 AM, "Marek Hajduczenia"
<marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx <mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>> wrote:
Avi,
How would that conversion happen? Would it be possible to allocate
partial RBs? How does the CLT know what the size of RB is? This
stuff raises just more questions than it answers.
What is wrong with the design that Ed originally had, i.e., where
grants are converted into carriers without the use of any RBs ?
Marek
*From:* Avi Kliger [mailto:akliger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:46 PM
*To:* Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy sub-task call
Marek,
Resource Block (RB) is a structure that is convenient for the PHY
transmissions, and should not be visible to upper layers. The CNU
PHY would get time allocations via grants and would convert them
into RBs for transmission. RBs are PHY structures with
pre-configured number of sub-carriers and OFDMA symbols, and
pilots structure. Pilots are required for the receiver for time
and frequency synchronization and for channel estimation.
As I believe there was no intention to redesign the MAC or MPCP in
order to support the RB structure
Avi
*From:* Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:37 AM
*To:* STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy sub-task call
Dear Sanjay,
Using something in a presentation does not necessarily mean that
it is something we either need, or defined for our own use. I
appreciate the education on this topic, but I am still unclear as
to why we need it in the first place, considering that all
allocation in EPON (and EPoC ?) would be done via grants, which
have nothing (absolutely) to do with frequency allocation.
It is true that CNUs would convert time-based allocation into set
of carriers, but that would be done in a matter transparent to
CLT, in which the CLT does not explicitly allocate specific
carriers to the specific CNU.
Now, were we to say that we want to redesign MPCP for the use in
EPoC and provide explicit carrier allocation, the discussion would
be different. But then also we would need a different project,
since it is hardly a reuse of EPON MPCP, but rather its redesign.
Marek
*From:* Sanjay Goswami [mailto:sanjay.goswami@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:17 AM
*To:* Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy sub-task call
Marek,
Resource block, resource element, slot are some of terms which are
already defined in other standards related to OFDMA. These terms
were used in the Details on Upstream Pilots and Resource Block
Configuration for EPoC
<http://www.ieee802.org/3/bn/public/may13/pietsch_3bn_01_0513.pdf>
presentation by Avi Kliger and Christian Pietsch in May 2013 IEEE
802.3bn Victoria meeting. In Phy Link Ad-hoc meeting last week,
Syed Rahman presentation focused on efficiency of Upstream
Resource blocks. The questions all of us are asking revolve
around the following:
a) Are we redefining these terms?
b) What is the scope of these terms?
Both are important questions. My objection was (which I see is
also your objection) related to the scope and visibility of these
terms. Changing the GATE format and making these PHY resources
visible to OLT seems to break the layering rules. It also makes
operating with existing equipment in field much more difficult. In
my view, we should not be touching the EPON MAC layers unless its
absolute must.
Another important aspect which Duane pointed out is the
visibility of these PHY terms. The questions is "Are these
programmable values in PHY?" If Yes, then how these are provisioned?
I would suggest that since Duane is suggesting these changes, he
can bring up these as Straw Poll in next Phy Link Ad-hoc meeting.
Regards
Sanjay
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 3:21 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy sub-task call
Duane,
In EPON, we somehow get away without specifying all that and yet
operators
are able to get the most of the EPON systems. Putting too many
knobs is a
simple way to overcomplicate the design and then end up with
interoperability problems. I am against putting too much rope out. The
strength of the Ethernet is in simplicity and reliability, and not
complexity and configurability taken to extreme.
Put it in different perspective - what is wrong with the current
definition
of a grant, which has nothing to do with frequency bands,
allocations etc.
and which was already proposed to be mapped into spectrum without
upper
layers being aware of this fact? Are you trying to revert this
agreement and
go towards redefinition of GATE MPCPDU structure and its meaning?
Regards
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013 9:31 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Eugene,
If you keep this hidden from 802.3 then there will be no
opportunity for the
operator to vary this to account for the network. Is this OK with all
operators?
I agree that there is no need for the MAC to be aware of this, I
don't agree
that the upper DBA layer should necessarily be unaware of this nor
that the
operator should not be able to control the RB size via MDIO should
they
choose to do so.
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: Dai, Eugene (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Eugene.Dai@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 3:38 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
I would be careful to introduce a concept such as "resource block"
or what
ever you might call it into 802.3bn. "Resource block" make sense
in DOCSIS
3.1 OFDM because CMTS completely aware RF PHY. In 802.3bn, CLT/OLT
does not
know or aware RF PHY OFDM parameters; the grant is based on TQ. If
we go
that far open the door to let CLT/OLT aware OFDM, I am afraid it will
deviate from our original plan too much.
Eugene
________________________________________
From: Marek Hajduczenia [marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx
<mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx>]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:48 AM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Duane,
My point is much simpler - if this new thing is essentially a
grant, why not
use "grant" rather than create a new term for it ?
Marek
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013 3:22 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Marek,
I would welcome your input on how to make a less confusing
definition. I
would have no problem replacing GATE with grant.
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx>
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 5:42 AM
To: Duane Remein; STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Duane,
Such a definition is confusing at best - you seem to assume that
we allocate
specific range of spectrum via GATE message, and we can do so only
in time
domain. We also do have a term already in GATE - "grant" - and I
am not sure
why we need to define yet another one to speak about apparently
the very
same thing.
Marek
From: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013 10:38 PM
To: STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
I agree we havn't a formal definition. I would purpose something
like: "a
set of sub-carriers connected in time related in frequency, but not
necessarily contigeous in frequency, allocated by a single GATE
message".
Best Regards,
Duane
FutureWei Technologies Inc.
duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:duane.remein@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Director, Access R&D
919 418 4741
Raleigh, NC
From: Avi Kliger [mailto:akliger@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:48 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
In the joint upstream pilot contribution by QCOM+BRCM we described
what we
called a RB. It wasn't a "formal" definition though.
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 1:46 AM
To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Thank you for confirmation, Syed,
It is hard for me then to understand proposals towards such an
undefined
entity .... Is anybody actually planning to define this term ?
Marek
From: Syed Rahman [mailto:Syed.R@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 11:24 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Marek,
* To the best of my knowledge, so far we have not decided on a
formal resource block definition.
* There have been multiple presentations which talked
about resource
blocks for different applications (pilots, burst markers, et cetra..)
* Attached is one such presentation
Thanks,
Syed
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:45 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in
todays phy
sub-task call
Dear colleagues,
Have we ever really generated a consented definition of the whole
"resource
block"? I have been looking through a number of contributions and
it seems
that it is kind of give, yet I must have missed a formal
definition of what
this really is. Could anybody point to where it was defined (if it
was done
before) or try to come up with a consistent definition of what
this is (at
best, relative to EPON for simpler comprehension) ?
Thank you in advance
Marek
From: Syed Rahman [mailto:Syed.R@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013 9:05 PM
To:
STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:STDS-802-3-EPOC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [STDS-802-3-EPOC] Resoruce block presentation in todays phy
sub-task call
All,
Attached is the presentation I gave in today's Phys sub-task
force call.
Thanks,
Syed
________________________________
<="" p="">
________________________________
<="" p="">
________________________________
________________________________
<="" p="">
________________________________
<="" p="">
________________________________
________________________________
<="" p="">
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following
link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1>
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following
link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1>
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-EPOC list, click the following
link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-EPOC&A=1>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<="" p="">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<="" p="">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<="" p="">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<="" p="">
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<="" p="">
------------------------------------------------------------------------