Questions on Queue State Element

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Quality of Service CS 457 Presentation Xue Gu Nov 15, 2001.
Advertisements

Doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier.
January 2002 Khaled Turki et. al, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /022r0 Submission TID Field Usage in QoS CF-Poll Khaled Turki and Matthew.
Doc.: IEEE /289r0 Submission Bobby Jose,Slide 1 March 2002 CC/RR Alternatives HCF Adhoc Discussion Work Sheet V00.04 Bobby Jose, et.al
24-1 Chapter 24. Congestion Control and Quality of Service (part 1) 23.1 Data Traffic 23.2 Congestion 23.3 Congestion Control 23.4 Two Examples.
Doc.: IEEE /879r3 Submission August 2004 Abel Dasylva, Nortel NetworksSlide 1 Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC A. Dasylva,
1 Medium Access Control Enhancements for Quality of Service IEEE Std e TM November 2005.
ACN: IntServ and DiffServ1 Integrated Service (IntServ) versus Differentiated Service (Diffserv) Information taken from Kurose and Ross textbook “ Computer.
1 689 Lecture 2 Review of Last Lecture Networking basics TCP/UDP review.
1 TCP Transport Control Protocol Reliable In-order delivery Flow control Responds to congestion “Nice” Protocol.
Connecting Networks © 2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Defining the IP Packet Delivery Process INTRO v2.0—4-1.
Mapping QoS in a PMIPv6 Mobility Domain (draft-kaippallimalil-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-04) IETF 89 London, UK Authors: John Kaippallimalil Rajesh Pazhannur.
1 Medium Access Control Enhancements for Quality of Service IEEE Std e TM November 2005.
Doc.: IEEE /678r1 Submission January 2003 Mark Bilstad, Cisco SystemsSlide 1 Uniform e Admissions Control Signaling for HCF and EDCF Bob.
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission May 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 Considerations for Statistical Multiplexing Support in OBSS Proposal.
Doc.: IEEE /601r0 Submission Harada Yasuo, Matsushita Electric Ind. Slide 1 November20 01 Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement.
Doc.: IEEE / aa Submission Apr 2009 Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1 Considerations for Statistical Multiplexing Support in OBSS Proposal.
Lecture Network layer -- May Congestion control Algorithms.
MPTCP Protocol – Updates draft-ietf-mptcp-multiaddressed-03 Alan Ford, Costin Raiciu, Mark Handley, Olivier Bonaventure.
Doc.: IEEE /0126r1 Submission January mc HEMM Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
11 CS716 Advanced Computer Networks By Dr. Amir Qayyum.
Doc.: IEEE /577r0 Submission July 2003 Qiang NI, Pierre Ansel, Thierry Turletti, INRIASlide 1 A Fair Scheduling Scheme for HCF Qiang Ni, Pierre.
Doc.:IEEE /517r0 Submission August 2002 IBM Research Slide 1 Some Clarifications to IEEE e, Draft 3.2, August 2002 H.L. Truong and G. Vannuccini.
Doc.:IEEE /0318r0 March 2013 A. Asterjadhi, Qualcomm Inc. Short MAC Header Design Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /248r0 Submission Bobby JoseSlide 1 February 2002 Contention Free TXOP Request and Allocation Issues Bobby Jose,
The Network Layer Role Services Main Functions Standard Functions
Fast Retransmit For sliding windows flow control we waited for a timer to expire before beginning retransmission of a packet TCP uses an additional mechanism.
Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement
How to collect STAs’ Tx demands for UL MU
Net 323: NETWORK Protocols
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 6: Quality of Service Connecting Networks.
Month Year Doc Title Jan 2018
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
An alternative mechanism to provide parameterized QoS
EE 122: Lecture 18 (Differentiated Services)
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Use of EDCA Access During HCF Polling
Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
QoS Poll Modifications Allowing Priority
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Joint meeting with 802.1AVB Date: Authors: July 2009
An alternative mechanism to provide parameterized QoS
TGe Consensus Proposal
OBSS HCCA Race Condition
Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement
EE 122: Differentiated Services
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Acknowledgement for Multicast Streams
A Fair Scheduling Scheme for HCF
QoS STA function applied to Mesh STA
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Uniform e Admissions Control Signaling for HCF and EDCF
Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Concerns on EDCF Admission Control
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Sharp Laboratories USA
Month 2000 doc.: IEEE /xxx July 2002
Burst Transmission and Acknowledgment
Proposed Resolution for Draft 3.0
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Proposed Timestamp Field for Strictly Ordered Indication
Fixed Inter Frame Spacing for BRP in ay
Signaling for Streaming in IEEE e
TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?
Presentation transcript:

Questions on Queue State Element December 18 March 2002 Questions on Queue State Element Shugong Xu Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. E-Mail: sxu@sharplabs.com Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Brief info. of QSE Proposed around Sep, 2001; March 2002 Brief info. of QSE Proposed around Sep, 2001; Intended to be an alternative to TSPEC in the original proposal; Passed by the 802.11e WG after withdrawing the proposal of removing TSPEC, in Austin meeting, Nov 2001. (doc# 01/597r1) Will be included in the new draft. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

March 2002 Some aspect of QSE Based on aggregated traffic for one traffic category, instead of each single traffic as that in TSPEC; Assume L3 entity for admission control; AP or HC do not need to have information on each traffic; Measures queue size in units of time, not bytes; NO reply for the Report Queue State frame; Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Questions from the aggregated traffic March 2002 Questions from the aggregated traffic What the FEC, ACK policy bits mean for aggregated traffic within one TC? In one TC, there may be several TSs, in which some of them use FEC, some not. Same thing happens for ACK policy bit. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Questions from “No handshake” March 2002 Questions from “No handshake” NO reply for the Report Queue State frame. No re-negotiation possible. more congestion, more QSE, which is in the high priority. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

HC (AP) no information for TS March 2002 HC (AP) no information for TS No policing possible; Can we trust the stations for staying within the limit they have negotiated (via L3)? High priority applications based on TCP, or proposed DCP (datagram control protocol) in IETF. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

March 2002 Other open issues The complexity left for the end-point application? Most probably the complexity will be in the MAC of end-point. And lots of design details need to make clear. The performance depends on implementation choices. Such as, How large the sender buffer will be for one traffic category? Large diversity between traffics exists, which could lead the amount of the buffer requirement varying greatly. Making this even worse, it is hard to anticipate the traffic of future new applications. What if the buffer for one certain TC very small? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Other open issues (cont.) March 2002 Other open issues (cont.) Each traffic category should have one separated queue? How often for sending the QSE? When to send one? when to send the first QSE? the beginning of each traffic? (no queue built up yet) How fine is fine for the mapping from queue length to time? Note here we have variable size frames. How to do this? packet by packet? or total bytes in the queue? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Some other questions (fundamental) March 2002 Some other questions (fundamental) Without knowing the necessary globe information or activity of other stations, can one end-point makes the decisions for how much time should be allocated to itself? What will happen if HC cannot support all the TXOP requests? Anticipating traffic from an instantaneous queue length? Without considering the changing rate of the queue length? How about busty traffic like VBR video? The instantaneous queue length is NOT stable, even for CBR traffic. Which instance will be used for deciding TXOP? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

March 2002 Final question QSE cannot work alone, what we need to do to make it function with TSPEC? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs