EDCA Parameters for WAVE Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 EDCA Parameters for WAVE Date: 2007-05-14 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.11. 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair stuart@ok-brit.com as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>. Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Abstract This presentation answers 802.11p draft comments about the EDCA parameters for use in a WBSS that are shown in Table p4. Simulation results will be presented which show that the parameters are optimum and give good performance for more than 200 vehicles. Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Overview General simulation description Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Overview General simulation description Simulation scenarios and results EDCA parameter optimization (verification of Table p4) Simulation for more than 200 vehicles Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Simulation Platform NS-2 version 2.29 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Simulation Platform NS-2 version 2.29 802.11e module added TechnoCom-developed WAVE/DSRC modules added TechnoCom-developed pre- and post-processing software Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

General Simulation Setup Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 General Simulation Setup OBUs are arranged in a rectangular array in simulated space Each OBU broadcasts messages of a fixed AC on the CCH every 100 ms Each OBU is within range of every other OBU Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

General Simulation Setup Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 General Simulation Setup LL OBU transmission range UL OBU transmission range UR OBU transmission range LR OBU transmission range = OBU LR LL UL UR Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1: EDCA Parameter Optimization Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Scenario 1: EDCA Parameter Optimization Addresses 11p draft comments such as 418 Simulations were performed in 12/2006 for VIIC Proof of Concept system 150 simulated OBUs in the array Vary AIFSN, CWmin, CWMax Compare message delivery success rate (MDSR) and packet latency for each AC Optimization criteria Higher-priority messages should be received faster Packet latencies should be minimum Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 200 byte packets, one OBU at AC = 3 (1%), 6 at AC =2 (4%), 23 at AC =1 (15%) and 120 at AC = 0 (80%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 400 byte packets, one OBU at AC = 3 (1%), 6 at AC =2 (4%), 23 at AC =1 (15%) and 120 at AC = 0 (80%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 200 byte packets, 3 OBUs at AC = 3 (2%), 5 at AC =2 (3%), 7 at AC =1 (5%) and 135 at AC = 0 (90%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 400 byte packets, 3 OBUs at AC = 3 (2%), 5 at AC =2 (3%), 7 at AC =1 (5%) and 135 at AC = 0 (90%): Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 200 byte packets, 15 OBUs at AC = 3 (10%), 30 at AC =2 (20%), 45 at AC =1 (30%) and 60 at AC = 0 (40%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 400 byte packets, 15 OBUs at AC = 3 (10%), 30 at AC =2 (20%), 45 at AC =1 (30%) and 60 at AC = 0 (40%): Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 200 byte packets, 37 OBUs at AC = 3 (25%), 38 at AC =2 (25%), 37 at AC =1 (25%) and 38 at AC = 0 (25%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Results May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 400 byte packets, 37 OBUs at AC = 3 (25%), 38 at AC =2 (25%), 37 at AC =1 (25%) and 38 at AC = 0 (25%) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Scenario 1 Conclusions The results verify that the parameters given in Table p4 (also the first row in each of the preceding results tables) give the best compromise among the optimization criteria. Good prioritization even at low channel loading Good message delivery success rate throughout the ACs Reasonable packet latencies, even at high loading and low priorities Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 1 Conclusions May 2007 Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 AC CWmin CWmax AIFSN TXOP Limit OFDM PHY (WAVE mode) AC_BK aCWmin = 15 aCWmax = 1023 9 AC_BE (aCWmin+1)/2 – 1 = 7 6 AC_VI (aCWmin+1)/4 – 1 = 3 3 AC_VO 2 Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Scenario 2: More than 200 Vehicles Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Scenario 2: More than 200 Vehicles Simulations were performed in 5/2007 to address 11p draft comments such as 415, 420, etc. Set AIFSN, CWmin, CWMax as in Table p4 200 byte packets Vary the total number of simulated OBUs in the array Same number of OBUs for each AC (i.e. 25% of the OBUs are broadcasting highest priority messages) Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Highest priority (AC = AC_VO) messages Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Scenario 2 Results Number of vehicles Highest priority (AC = AC_VO) messages MDSR (%) Mean latency (ms) Max latency (ms) 250 85 0.4 1.3 300 78 1.5 350 75 0.5 1.7 Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company

Month Year doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 May 2007 Scenario 2 Conclusions The results verify that the parameters given in Table p4 give good results for more than 200 vehicles Message delivery success rate is good, despite small contention window Packet latencies are good Justin McNew – TechnoCom John Doe, Some Company