Submission doc.: IEEE 802.19-15/0027r0 March 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Considerations on Difficulty of Possible Coexistence Scenarios in Studying.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /0021r2 Submission July 2008 Jing Zhu, Intel CorporationSlide 1 IEEE 802 Air-Interface Support for Co- Located Coexistence Notice:
Advertisements

Submission doc.: IEEE /0010r0 January 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Coexistence Scenario and Use Cases Date: Authors: Notice: This.
Submission doc.: IEEE /XXXXr0 Month Year John Doe, Some CompanySlide 1 Insert Presentation Title Here Date: YYYY-MM-DD Authors: Notice: This document.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0032r0 April 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 The new coexistence use cases for IEEE Date: Authors: Notice:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0040r0 May 2015 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 May 2015 Opening Report Date: Authors: Notice: This document.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0089r1 January 2015 Steve Shellhammer, QualcommSlide 1 3GPP LAA Liaison Approval Process Date: Authors: Notice:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0071r0 August 2015 Alaa Mourad, BMW GroupSlide 1 Coexistence Management in the 2.4GHz ISM Band in the Automotive Environment.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0073r0 September 2015 Alaa Mourad, BMW GroupSlide 1 Wireless Coexistence in the Automotive Environment – Interest group.
Doc.: IEEE Submission doc. : IEEE March 2009 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0097r0 November 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Information exchange between independent IEEE systems Date: xx.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0018r0 January 2016 Naotaka Sato, SonySlide 1 Liaison to Wireless Innovation Forum Date: Authors: Notice: This.
Doc.: 18-15/0043 Submission July 17 th, 2015 Michael Lynch, MJ Lynch & Associates LLCSlide 1 RR-TAG Closing Report Notice: This document has been prepared.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0011r2 January 2016 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 System architecture for information exchange between independent IEEE
Submission doc.: IEEE /0094r1 November 2015 Chen SUN, SonySlide 1 Coexistence Management Considering Interference Alignment Date: Notice:
Doc.: IEEE /0013r0 Submission January 2012 Mika Kasslin, NokiaSlide 1 Motivation for Monitor WSO Notice: This document has been prepared to assist.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0021r1 Janurary 2016 Chen SUN, SonySlide 1 Application scenario and text change proposal for coexistence management considering.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0015r0 January 2016 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Proposal for CM discovery/selection/ association as CE operation Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0017r0 January 2016 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Proposal on proxy coexistence service for moving WSO Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 January 2016 Naotaka Sato, SonySlide 1 January 2016 TG1a Closing Report Date: Authors: Notice: This document.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0052r1 March 2016 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Supplemental document for text proposal on amendment to entity operations Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0061r0 Slide 1Igal Kotzer, General Motors March 2016 Automotive Environment Interference Evaluation Proposal Date:
Studies in WAC SG Date: Authors: September 2016
May 2007 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: MBAN Closing Report for Montreal May 2007 Date.
Submission Title: [Add name of submission]
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
June 2006 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Scenarios for Usage Model Document.
January 2016 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Sub-GHz proposal for ] Date Submitted:
May 2010 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Resolution To The FCC Part
March 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Toumaz response to TG6 Call for Applications]
<May,2009> doc.: IEEE <doc .....> <July 2009>
Submission Title: [802.11n Liaison Report May 2009]
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
March 2018 Opening Report Date: Authors: March 2018
Possible Effects of FCC rules to design
Design Principles for Entity Responsibilities
Month Year doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0 July 2015
Project: IEEE P WG for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
January 2016 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Sub-GHz proposal for ] Date Submitted:
November 2015 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Text Proposal for FCC NPRM Response Date.
Submission Title: [WG WNG Liaison Report January08]
<month year> doc.: IEEE < e> <Jan 2019>
May 2010 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Resolution To The FCC Part
doc.: IEEE /XXXr0 Sep 19, 2007 June 2009
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
Updates to the Draft Authors:
Updates to the Draft Authors:
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
March 2016 Election Results
WAC SG November 2016 Opening Report
July Tutorial – Possible Solutions
May 2018 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: z Comments on ax Coexistence Assurance.
November 2015 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Text Proposal for FCC NPRM Response Date.
November 2018 Opening Report
Possible Action Items Date: Author:
Possible Action Items Date: Author:
Coexistence Decision Making Topologies
March 2019 Liaison Report Date: Authors: March 2019
January 2000 doc.: IEEE /189r0 January 2000
<month year> doc.: IEEE <030158r0> <March 2003>
List of Remaining Proposals for Downselection
September 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Suggested TG3c PAR Changes] Date Submitted:
May 2010 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposed Resolution To The FCC Part
Mar 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Resolution for Comment 70 ] Date Submitted:
Mar 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Resolution for Comment 70 ] Date Submitted:
Summary of the IEEE 802 Coexistence Process Discussion
Jul 12, /12/10 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Dependable Interest Group Closing.
Month Year doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0 January 2016
Jan 2008 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: TeraHertz Closing Report Date Submitted: January.
Presentation transcript:

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 March 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 1 Considerations on Difficulty of Possible Coexistence Scenarios in Studying Solutions Date: Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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.

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 March 2015 Sho Furuichi, SonySlide 2 Abstract In January interim meeting, we presented coexistence scenario and use cases for license-exempt devices and networks in the following frequency bands; o 5GHz U-NII bands o US 3.5GHz band This contribution considers the difficulty of the possible scenarios in studying coexistence solutions. Finally, we will provide suggestion according to this consideration.

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Possible Coexistence Scenarios There are three scenarios with different difficulty; A)All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously. B)Some devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously, and the other devices are managed. C)All the devices are managed. Slide 3Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Possible scenarios There are three scenarios with different difficulty; A)All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously. B)Some devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously, and the other devices are managed. C)All the devices are managed. Slide 4Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Scenario A: All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously Slide 5Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015 Example) Private Wi-Fi usage in a residential apartment building Congestion among autonomously-operated Wi-Fi

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Possible scenarios There are three scenarios with different difficulty; A)All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously. B)Some devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously, and the other devices are managed. C)All the devices are managed. Slide 6Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Scenario B: Some devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously, and the other devices are managed Slide 7Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015 Congestion between autonomously-operated Wi-Fi and LTE-LAA Example) Co-channel sharing between Wi-Fi and LTE-LAA in 5GHz bands

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Possible scenarios There are three scenarios with different difficulty; A)All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously. B)Some devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously, and the other devices are managed. C)All the devices are managed. Slide 8Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Scenario C: All the devices are managed Slide 9Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015 Congestion among managed Wi-Fi -Operator A -Operator B -Infra-administrator of shopping mall Example) Managed Wi-Fi usage in a building.

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Comparison of Features and Difficulty Levels for Coexistence FeaturesScenario AScenario BScenario C AdministratorPersonalPersonal/Operator/Enterprise /Public infra-provider Operator/Enterprise/Public infra-provider Device distributionAll are independently distributed. Some are independently distributed. Others are designed. Designed. Availability of geo-location information for network coexistence HardMediumEasy Ensuring security and privacy DifficultMediumEasy Difficulty level for network coexistence HighMediumLow Slide 10Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015 [Suggestion] Step-by-step study will be better from low to high difficulty levels in order. Scenario C  Scenario B  Scenario A

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Corresponding Possible Use Cases (in Our Previous Contribution[1]) Slide 11Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015 No use cases correspond to Scenario A. Use case 1 corresponds to Scenario B. Use cases 2 – 4 correspond to Scenario C.

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Summary This contribution considered the difficulty of the possible scenarios in studying coexistence solutions. o Difficult case: All the devices are independently distributed and operating autonomously. o Easy case: All the devices are managed. Step-by-step study from low to high difficulty levels in order will be better to study coexistence solutions. Slide 12Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015

Submission doc.: IEEE /0027r0 Reference [1] IEEE /0010r0, “Coexistence Scenario and Use Cases” Slide 13Sho Furuichi, Sony March 2015