802.11ba Architecture Discussion

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /1054r0 Submission Sep Santosh Pandey (Cisco)Slide 1 FILS Reduced Neighbor Report Date: Authors:
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /0840r1 Submission AP Assisted Medium Synchronization Date: Authors: September 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0098r0 January 2016 Assaf Kasher, IntelSlide 1 Channel bonding proposals Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE 11-14/0562r0 May 2014 SubmissionSlide 1Norman Finn, Cisco Systems, Mark Hamilton, Spectralink ak and 802.1AC Convergence Function Date:
Doc.: IEEE /1034r0 Submission September 2015 Yongho Seok, NEWRACOM Notification of Operating Mode Changes Date: Authors: Slide 1.
Doc.: IEEE 11-14/0562r7 November 2015 SubmissionSlide 1Norman Finn, Cisco Systems, Mark Hamilton, Spectralink ak and 802.1AC Convergence Function.
FILS Reduced Neighbor Report
Portal and 802.1AC Convergence Function
WUR Wakeup Channel Access
TGad Architecture Discussion Topics
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
ARC-SC-agenda-November-2017
On AP Power Saving Usage Model
High Level MAC Concept for WUR
Locationing Protocol for 11az
WUR coexistence with existing power save mode
Polling for MU Measurements
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
ARC-SC-agenda-July-2017 Date: Authors: July 2009
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
WUR MAC issues follow-up
TXOP Considerations for Spatial Reuse
Integration of WUR to Power Save Mode
Examples of Integrating WUR with Existing Power Save Protocol
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Further considerations on WUR frame format
Consideration on Wake-Up Receiver Security
Multiple MAC addresses
Address structure in unicast wake-up frame
Multiple BSSID Set considerations
Wake up packet contents
TWT SP initiation and termination and legacy PS
MAC Component Breakdown Work-In-Progress
Consideration on WUR packet Design
FILS Reduced Neighbor Report
Group Delay for Group Addressed Wake Up Frames
WUR MAC and Wakeup Frame
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
WUR MAC and Wakeup Frame
ARC-SC-agenda-Jan-2019 Date: Authors: July 2009
Further considerations on WUR frame format
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Further Consideration for WUR Acknowledgement Indication
Address structure in unicast wake-up frame
802.11ba Architecture Discussion
ARC Closing Report Date: Authors: January 2016
Address structure in unicast wake-up frame
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
RTS&CTS Exchange in wideband transmission
TXOP Considerations for Spatial Reuse
WUR Security Proposal Date: Authors: September 2017
WUR Security Proposal Date: Authors: September 2017
Reducing Channel Access Delay
MAC considerations for the V2P use case
Address structure in unicast wake-up frame
WUR MAC and Wakeup Frame
Address structure in unicast wake-up frame
ARC-SC-agenda-July-2018 Date: Authors: July 2009
MAC Component Breakdown Work-In-Progress
On AP Power Saving Usage Model
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
802.11ba Architecture Discussion
ARC-SC-agenda-July-2018 Date: Authors: July 2009
ARC-SC-agenda-July-2018 Date: Authors: July 2009
TGba Possible Architecture and Specification Issues
Reducing Channel Access Delay
Traffic Filter based Wakeup Service
Further Consideration for WUR Acknowledgement Indication
Peer Traffic Indication enhancements
TGba Possible Architecture and Specification Issues
Presentation transcript:

802.11ba Architecture Discussion April 2014 doc.: IEEE 802.11-14/0497r0 802.11ba Architecture Discussion Date: 2017-08-11 Authors: Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade Norman Finn, Cisco Systems, Mark Hamilton, Spectralink

April 2014 doc.: IEEE 802.11-14/0497r0 Abstract This presentation continues considerations for a discussion between TGba and ARC SC, on any adjustments/additions needed to 802.11 architecture to support 802.11ba. The intention is to propose some approaches to any such adjustments/additions that might be needed to support the 11ba architecture. Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade Norman Finn, Cisco Systems, Mark Hamilton, Spectralink

Questions/topics discussed with TGba, at Berlin F2F Is the WUR an independent PHY? Yes, it is a fully independent PHY. Coexistence/cooperation aspects have been built-in, to allow channel sharing with traditional 802.11 PHYs. Is the WUR an independent MAC? Probably/possibly. Note, however, it is not “standalone”. The WUR MAC is a “companion” MAC/PHY that can only operate under the control of negotiation that takes place over the “main” MAC/PHY. Is the WUR always physically collocated with an 802.11 AP or STA? Yes. Does the WUR have an address? Or, does it “share” the collocated STAs address? The WUR MAC/PHY do not have a separate MAC Address. There is a WUR identifier, with local negotiation and scope only, however. WUR does not associate with the BSS. Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Questions/topics discussed with TGba, at Berlin F2F Does the WUR MAC connect to/integrate with the 802.11 MAC? Yes. Per above, around negotiation with peer(s), and addressing. And, power on/off is coordinated between the MACs. OR… Does the WUR ‘wake’ the device, and the device contains independent WUR and an 802.11 MAC/PHY, and some ‘host function’ between them? Some debate on this, perhaps. For now, assuming the model is MAC <-> MAC connection. Perhaps related/duplicate: Does the introduction of the WUR impact the behavior of a collocated/integrated STA’s MAC/PHY? Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

More advanced questions/topics discussed briefly in Berlin F2F Does a WUR associate to a BSS? No. If yes, the same BSS as any collocated/integrated STA, or a separate ‘overlay’ BSS of WUR devices? NA Does the WUR work with all 802.11 PHYs e.g. a, b, g, n, ac, ad, ah, ax, ay? WUR only runs in 2.4/5 GHz. But, can work with all PHYs (maybe?). Does the WUR work with mesh STAs? IBSS? OCB? Mesh, IBSS, OCB uses are TBD in the future, not now Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

TGba architecture new questions (from Berlin Wed AM1 ARC) Does every WUR stack have an individual “ID” (“WUR address”)? Or, could a given WUR stack be only addressed using a “group ID” in some scenarios? How are WUR ID’s made globally unique, or are they? What about overlapping WUR coverage? Prevented using the same solution as security protections? Prevented through selection of different sub- carriers? How does the WUR stack become aware of ongoing NAV protections? RX doesn’t need to know. What about the TXr? For protection – how much of a legacy frame header is sent? Just PHY header? Some MAC header (addresses? NAV? Etc) Is there any sharing (necessarily, as part of the design, not implementation choice) of RF front-end?

TGba architecture new questions (from Berlin Wed AM1 ARC) What happens when the Main stack wakes up? Does it still have an association? Is it in some power save state (which)? “Yes, fully independent PHY” – is that for the RX side, or the TX side? What about error recovery? STA goes out of range? What if the AP changes (DFS, ITS, etc)?

TGba architecture assumptions (to be confirmed/discussed) WUR RX doesn’t need to know about NAV or other medium- related state. For TXr, the Main stack runs the usual medium access, and waits until it has a TxOp, then triggers the WUR to TX. On the RXr, only one stack (WUR or Main) is active at a given point in time. During WUR Mode doze, legacy ‘scheduled’ activities are suspended (details TBD). On the RXr, when the Main stack is woken up by the WUR stack, it still has an association and is in an existing mechanism power save state (WNM Sleep Mode, U-APSD, etc.?). Upon wakeup, the Main stack TXs to its AP, which is the indication that the wakeup was successful and completed. On the WUR RX STA (the sleeping node), the WUR can be 100% RX with no TX capability at all. There is a TXr on the master node, so the nodes are therefore (potentially) different architecturally. The WUR “wakeup” frame does not NAV protect to cover the sleeping device’s Main radio waking up and TXing.

Current 802.11 architecture concepts There is no “STA” with more than one PHY Need to investigate implications of a “companion” PHY (let alone MAC) A “STA” is a singly addressable instance of a MAC and PHY This is still true with WUR. Still only one MAC Address for the “pair” of Main stack and WUR stack. Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Current 802.11 architecture concepts A STA has a single MAC, single PHY, and Mgmt, per Figure 4-19 Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Adding WUR concepts … A dozing STA has two, cooperating, MACs and PHYs WUR PHY is RX only, is WUR MAC also RX only? (Probably) Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Adding WUR concepts … For sake of independent operation, probably has (at least some) Management Entities dedicated to the WUR operation Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Adding WUR concepts … Note: No MAC SAP (no data frames); shared SME; shared 802.1X mgmt (even relevant?) Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Adding WUR concepts … Need definitions of: MLME SAP for WUR (probably pretty simple) WUR MLME <-> Main MLME primitives (also: to/from SME or direct?) WUR PHY SAP and PLME SAP (RX only, any other difference from ‘normal’? Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade

Adding WUR concepts … On transmitter (master) side: Is WUR TX really a separate stack, or a “mode” of the Main? (What band/channel are they each on? (Main does channel access for WUR?)) Is WUR stack TX only, or TX/RX? Different primitives Main MLME <-> WUR MLME (channel access stuff, instead of wakeup stuff). Anything else? Any other differences (from RX model, or from legacy STA)? Mark Hamilton, Ruckus/Brocade