Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 1
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Project: IEEE P802.19 Coexistence TAG
Submission Title: Coexistence Classes UpdateDate Submitted: 13 November, 2002Source: Jim Lansford, Company Mobilian CorporationAddress 7431 NW Evergreen Pkwy, Hillsboro, OR 97124Voice:+1 405 377 6170, FAX: +1 425 671 6099, E-Mail: [email protected]
Re:
Abstract: Additional work on the concept of coexistence classes, where the coexistence of one system with another is assigned a score
Purpose: For discussion
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.19. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.19.
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 2
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Coexistence Classes UpdateJim Lansford
+1 405 377 6170
Henry Nielsen
ST Microelectronics
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 3
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Overview
• Goals: Allow coexistence to be scored or graded– WGs can use in selection criteria– 802.19 can use to grade proposals
• Initial presentation in September– Levels 0-4– Augmented over time to allow more fine-grained– Need more help to move this forward
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 4
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Review: Varying facets of Coexistence• Ability of a system to
– Perform its own tasks, possibly in hostile environment– Detect other systems– Adapt to presence of other systems– Reduce impact of its operation on other systems– Negotiate with other systems
• Are to be evaluated both in-band and out-of-band• Depend strongly on separation distance• Are defined and conceived of differently in each
organization
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 5
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Review: Proposed Coexistence Classes
0 Ignorant of possibility that other systems or protocols may exist
1 Aware that others may exist, expects them to make any adaptations
2 Aware that others may exist, unilaterally acts to reduce impact
3 Actively detects others, unilaterally acts to reduce impact on them
4 Actively detects others, negotiates with them to optimize mutual performance
A device or system may be characterized by different coexistence classes in different bands. e.g. An AFH Bluetooth WPAN is class-3 wrt 802.11b, but may be class-0 for some proprietary ISM systems
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 6
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Possible Grading Scale
• Included criteria such as throughput degradation, latency, jitter, etc.
• Proposal evaluation – who does?– How objective can this grading scale be?– Can 802.19 really do this? (or back on WG to assist)
Standard “X” Standard “Y” Standard “Z” Other? (microwave, radar, cordless phone, etc.)
Proposal “a” 0 2 3 5
Proposal “b” 1 3 5 2
Proposal 3 2 1 0
November 2002
Jim Lansford, Mobilian, Henry Nielsen, ST MicroSlide 7
doc.: IEEE 802.19-02/011r0
Submission
Next steps
• PHY vs PHY+MAC evaluation– SIR can give 1st cut at throughput degradation– Interference quantifies problem, grading gives
indication of expected improvement
• Need to flesh out grading criteria– Examples: AFH, 802.15.2 AWMA, 802.15.2 PTA– 802.11h (DFS/TPC)
• Can this be turned into a general procedure?
