On the Efficiency of TGnSync Preambles

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
VoIP Models for System Performance Evaluation Farooq Khan IEEE Interim Meeting Vancouver, BC, Canada January 12-16, 2004.
Advertisements

Submission doc.: IEEE /1452r0 November 2014 Leif Wilhelmsson, EricssonSlide 1 Frequency selective scheduling in OFDMA Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0336r1 March 2015 Xiaofei Wang (InterDigital)Slide 1 MAC Overhead Analysis of MU Transmissions Date: Authors:
1 Route Table Partitioning and Load Balancing for Parallel Searching with TCAMs Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering National Cheng.
Doc.: IEEE /0099 Submission Payload Symbol Size for 11ax January 2015 Ron Porat, BroadcomSlide 1 Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /206 Submission Slide 1 July 2000 Loraine, Micro Linear Corp. HRb performance requirements: PHY Overhead & Data Rate July 2000 Jerry.
Doc.: IEEE /0255r0 Submission March 2005 John Ketchum, Qualcomm IncSlide 1 Responses to WWiSE Points on Beamforming Notice: This document has.
NTU Confidential 1 Introduction of TGnSync n proposal Speaker:Zih-Yin Ding Professor: Tzi-Dar Chiueh September 27 th, 2004.
Submission doc: IEEE /0807r0 July 2010 R. Kudo et al., NTT Slide 1 PHY Abstraction for MU-MIMO Date: Authors: Name AffiliationsAddressPhone .
Doc.: IEEE /0535r0 Submission May 2008 Thomas Kenney, Minyoung Park, Eldad Perahia, Intel Corp. Slide 1 PHY and MAC Throughput Analysis with 80.
Doc.: IEEE /0213r1 Submission Slide 1 David Tung, et al. (Ralink Technology) March 2005 On the Efficiency of TGnSync Preambles David Tung,
On the feasibility of 1Gbps for various MAC/PHY architectures
Wireless Networking Business Unit
GI Overhead/Performance Impact on Open-Loop SU-MIMO
Satoru Hori, Yasuhiko Inoue, Tetsu Sakata, Masahiro Morikura
Effective Training Sequence for n
Effective (20us) Preambles for MIMO-OFDM
Data Rate Selection for Wake-up Receiver
L-Header spoofing and bit reuse
Rate 7/8 (1344,1176) LDPC code Date: Authors:
Proposal for TGad Evaluation Methodology
An Overview of ax Greg Kamer – Consulting Systems Engineer.
On the Physical Carrier Sense in Wireless Ad-hoc Networks
Options for PBCC 22 Proposal
Closed versus Open Loop
HNS Proposal for n Physical Layer
VHT Packet Duration Signaling
Options for PBCC 22 Proposal
Short Slot Time Option for TGg
VoIP Models for System Performance Evaluation
OFDMA Performance Analysis
Error Rate Results of OFDM from Bluetooth Interference
Overheads in Data Stream Over WLAN
doc.: IEEE /304 Mark Webster Steve Halford
Project: n TG High Throughput WLAN
doc.: IEEE /0190r0 March 2005 March 2005
Backwards compatibility
Enhanced MAC proposal for high throughput.
Project: n TG High Throughput WLAN
OFDMA Performance Analysis
The Effect of Preamble Error Model on MAC Simulator
On The Use Of Reed Solomon Codes For n
OFDM System Performance
VoIP Models for System Performance Evaluation
ETRI Proposal to IEEE TGn
Synchronization Requirements
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
AccuRate: Constellation Aware Rate Estimation in Wireless Networks
No Time to Countdown: Backing Off in Frequency Domain
WWiSE IEEE n Proposal August 13, 2004
Figure 11-1.
Security aspects of MAC Aggregation
Considerations on NGV PHY design
Project: n TG High Throughput WLAN
Figure Overview.
Joint Proposal PHY Overview
Figure Overview.
OFDMA performance in 11ax
Multiple Antenna OFDM solutions for enhanced PHY
OFDMA Performance Analysis
Strawmodel ac Specification Framework
HNS Proposal for n Physical Layer
Project: n TG High Throughput WLAN
Proposal for TGad Evaluation Methodology
Comparisons of HARQ transmission schemes for 11be
System Level Simulator Evaluation with/without Capture Effect
Evaluation of Protocol efficiency
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
Consideration on System Level Simulation
Presentation transcript:

On the Efficiency of TGnSync Preambles David Tung, dtung@ralinktech.com Tom Pare, tpare@ralinktech.com Ralink Technology

Overview A short review of legacy 802.11 preambles shows that it is important to keep the preamble design as efficient as possible. We developed a method to quantify the performance impact of TGn Sync’s longer preamble design. Compared to WWiSE’s greenfield preamble design, TGn Sync’s preambles degrade performance as high as 6~14.7 dB for 1536 bytes DATA packet. We conclude that greenfield preamble is necessary for all TGn proposals.

Legacy Preambles

Proposed 11n Preambles

Preambles Review Legacy 802.11 preambles provide low overhead to achieve ~50% efficiency (throughput/PHY rate) under typical TCP/IP traffic. One of the biggest challenges in 11n preambles design is to keep it as efficient (short) as possible. Aggregation techniques will be helpful, however penalty will still be high in many cases without careful optimization. Long 11n preamble will show major penalty with smaller data packets or higher number of TX streams.

Evaluation Method Calculate throughput using different preamble lengths with bounded overheads. Given a preamble length (P us), symbol length (S us) and PHY rate (R Mbps) find the corresponding throughput (T Mbps) with a selected overhead (H us) and packet Length (L bytes) , the formula of throughput is simply: T = L*8/[L*8/R+P+H]S, where [.]S is a rounding up to multiple of S. Find the corresponding PHY rates for the same throughput with different preamble lengths.

Evaluation Method (cont’d) Convert the difference of PHY rates (with the same throughput) into penalty in dB. Assume the PHY rates are X and Y (X > Y), assume rate X with B bits per sub-carrier. The performance difference (D db) is estimated to be : D = (X-Y)/X*B*3. For example performance differences of 54 Mbps and 48, 36, 24, 18, 12, 9, 6 Mbps are estimated to be 2 (1), 6 (5), 10 (9) , 12 (12), 14 (14), 15 (16), 16 (17) dB, where (.) are 11a spec.

Penalty with 2 TX Streams

Penalty with 4 TX Streams

TGnSync Penalties Table

Conclusions The performance penalties of longer TGn Sync preambles are as high as 6~14.7 dB for 1536 bytes DATA packet. Greenfield preamble is a must for all TGn proposals.

Backups

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6