Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh 9/14/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/03xxr0 March 2004 Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh Narasimha Chari (chari@tropos.com) Malik Audeh (malik.audeh@tropos.com) Tropos Networks San Mateo, CA Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks Realtek

Purpose Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort March 2004 Purpose Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort We highlight the need for standardized interconnectivity We compare and contrast the characteristics and functional requirements for a range of deployment scenarios We present some observations about the state of mesh networking and on the feasibility of standardizing a routing protocol We suggest a possible approach for the ESS Mesh Task Group to take Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

The need for standardized interconnectivity March 2004 The need for standardized interconnectivity Multiple vendors of mesh networking products already exist in the marketplace, serving different customer needs and providing solutions for different deployment environments Specification of a standard way for mesh products from different vendors to interconnect is likely to fuel large-scale adoption of such systems Interconnectivity across domain boundaries is likely to emerge as an important market requirement Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Multiple deployment scenarios 9/14/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/03xxr0 March 2004 Multiple deployment scenarios Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements Directional vs omni-directional meshes Indoor vs outdoor Fixed vs mobile Fixed wireless vs mobile access Infrastructure vs peer-to-peer Public safety vs ISP vs wireless carriers Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks Realtek

Directional vs Omnidirectional March 2004 Directional vs Omnidirectional Directional or sectored Relatively static connectivity Clock synchronization may be necessary Interference less likely Longer-range links Omnidirectional Neighbor list is highly dynamic Clock synchronization may not be required Interference avoidance is an important requirement Shorter-range links with multipath and fading Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Indoor vs Outdoor Indoor Focus on higher data rates 9/14/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/03xxr0 March 2004 Indoor vs Outdoor Indoor Focus on higher data rates Peer-to-peer applications Symmetric power levels Backhaul more widely distributed and available Backhauls typically equivalent in capacity Indoor propagation – walls, ceilings, desks Outdoor Lower data rates with higher rates used opportunistically Client-server applications Highly asymmetric links, power levels Backhaul sparsely distributed, availability is challenging Heterogeneous capacities on backhaul Outdoor propagation – trees, trucks, buildings Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks Realtek

Fixed/Infrastructure vs Mobile/Peer-to-Peer 9/14/2019 doc.: IEEE 802.11-04/03xxr0 March 2004 Fixed/Infrastructure vs Mobile/Peer-to-Peer Fixed Nodes are static Optimum route choices favor stability Client devices not part of the mesh Application traffic flows are client-to-wired-server Multiple backhaul sources present Mobile Nodes can be moving at high speeds Optimal route choices favor quick adaptation No distinction between clients and nodes Application traffic flows are peer-to-peer Backhaul may or may not be present Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks Realtek

Mesh networking - a rapidly evolving area March 2004 Mesh networking - a rapidly evolving area Active area of research and development Academic research – MIT RoofNet, CMU Monarch Commercial innovation Startups – Tropos, Mesh Networks, BelAir, Strix, Firetide, PacketHop, others Established companies – Nortel, Intel, Motorola Standards bodies (IETF MANET: AODV, DSR, DSDV, etc.) Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Challenges with standardizing a routing protocol March 2004 Challenges with standardizing a routing protocol Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements No one-size-fits-all approach optimal across usage scenarios Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed Standardization of a single protocol may be premature and may stifle innovation in a rapidly evolving space Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

ESS Mesh – One Possibility March 2004 ESS Mesh – One Possibility Common-denominator routing protocol There is utility in standardizing a base protocol that addresses those requirements that are common across a set of usage scenarios Likely to be suboptimal for a given usage scenario The standard should provide flexibility to use custom protocols (out of the scope of the standard) to address the specific requirements of given usage scenarios Node-level interconnectivity Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

Next Steps Prioritize deployment scenarios or usage models March 2004 Next Steps Prioritize deployment scenarios or usage models Develop functional requirements for a base set of usage scenarios Architect the system to retain flexibility and extensibility to adopt custom protocols tailored for specific usage models Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks