TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /272a Submission June 2001 S. Choi, Philips Research Slide 1 Problems with IEEE (e) NAV Operation and ONAV Proposal Javier del.
Advertisements

Doc: IEEE /705ar0 Submission Javier del Prado et. al November 2002 Slide 1 Mandatory TSPEC Parameters and Reference Design of a Simple Scheduler.
Doc.: IEEE /412r0 Submission S. Choi, Philips Research July 2001 Slide 1 Aligning e HCF and h TPC Operations Amjad Soomro, Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /413r0 Submission S. Choi, Philips Research July 2001 Slide 1 Can EDCF Support QoS? Sunghyun Choi Philips Research-USA Briarcliff Manor,
Doc.:IEEE /223r1 Submission March 2002 J. del Prado and S. Choi, Philips Slide 1 CC/RR Performance Evaluation - Revisited Javier del Prado and.
Doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier.
Doc.: IEEE /630r1a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research November 2001 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
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 /630r4a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research January 2002 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
Doc.: IEEE /289r0 Submission Bobby Jose,Slide 1 March 2002 CC/RR Alternatives HCF Adhoc Discussion Work Sheet V00.04 Bobby Jose, et.al
Doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 1 CFB Ending Rule under HCF Srinivas Kandala, Ken Nakashima, Yashihiro Ohtani.
1 Medium Access Control Enhancements for Quality of Service IEEE Std e TM November 2005.
IEEE EDCF: a QoS Solution for WLAN Javier del Prado 1, Sunghyun Choi 2 and Sai Shankar 1 1 Philips Research USA - Briarcliff Manor, NY 2 Seoul National.
1 Medium Access Control Enhancements for Quality of Service IEEE Std e TM November 2005.
Doc: IEEE /625r1 Submission Amjad Soomro et. al September 2002 Slide 1 TGe ‘Fast track’ proposed Draft Normative Text Changes Sai Shankar, Javier.
Doc.:IEEE /566r2 Submission November 2001 S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /248r0 Submission Bobby JoseSlide 1 February 2002 Contention Free TXOP Request and Allocation Issues Bobby Jose,
IEEE e Performance Evaluation
Flow control for EDMG devices
Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement
Flow control for EDMG devices
How to collect STAs’ Tx demands for UL MU
Triggered QoS Measurements
EDCF TCID, Queues, and Access Parameters Relationship
EDCF TXOP Bursting Simulation Results
Follow UP of Unifying Queue Size Report
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Non-Automatic Power Saving Delivery
Issue of Buffer Status reporting
CC/RR Performance Evaluation - Revisited
Ack Bitmap length for Burst ACK
New OFDM SERVICE Field Format for .11e MAC FEC
Simulation for EDCF Enhancement Comparison
HCF Duration Field Set Rules
Signaling Acceptable Error Rate in TSPEC
PCF vs. DCF: Limitations and Trends
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
doc.: IEEE /xxx Authors:
Regarding HE fragmentation
Burst Transmission and Acknowledgment
2/4/2019May 2008 November 2007 doc.: IEEE /2752r1
Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
MDA comments categorization
QoS STA function applied to Mesh STA
QoS Poll Modifications Allowing Priority
Comment resolution on BSR CID 8426
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
QoS STA function applied to Mesh STA
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
Uniform e Admissions Control Signaling for HCF and EDCF
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
Delayed Acknowledgement v.s. Normal Acknowledgement
Ack Bitmap length for Burst ACK
HCCA TXOP handling difficulties
Schedule Element Synchronization and Simplification
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
802.11g Contention Period – Solution for Co-existence with Legacy
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
Triggered QoS Measurements
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
Presentation transcript:

TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 November 2001 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier del Prado and Sunghyun Choi Philips Research USA Briarcliff Manor, New York sunghyun.choi@philips.com Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research BobbyJose, Hazel Ranch

Outline QoS Control Field - Overview May 2002 Outline QoS Control Field - Overview Problem Statement: Making a TXOP Request TXOP Requests in time TXOP Requests in Queue Size Conclusions Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 References Bobby Jose, “Contention Free TXOP Request and Allocation Issues,” IEEE 802.11-02/248r0 Bobby Jose, “Updated QoS Control Field,” IEEE 802.11-02/290r0 IEEE 802.11e QoS draft D2.0a Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

QoS Control Field - Overview May 2002 QoS Control Field - Overview 16 bit field Bits 0-8 represent either: TXOP limit in the Poll Frame TXOP duration request or queue size information (in QoS data, QoS Null and RR frames) Bit 9, 10, 11 identities FEC, non final and no Ack respectively Bits 12-15 identifies TID Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 Making a TXOP Request A QSTA can request for Bandwidth Allocation using the QoS control field: Request can be in time: TXOP duration in units of 16 seconds Or based on queue size (units of 128 octets) What are the advantages of each request method? Do we need both methods? Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 TXOP Requests in Time Time requests simplifies the problem of the scheduler at the HC/QAP - just grant the bandwidth in time to QSTA if available May not be optimal as requests can be arbitrary However, an scheduling algorithm based on “time requests” can not be optimal Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 TXOP Requests in Time Increases computational complexity at the QSTA as it has to determine the time required depending on the queue size. Need to consider: Data rate Frame length Fragmentation Additional problem: Is the TXOP duration requested for aggregated frames or for a single frame? If TXOP duration requests are for aggregated frames, how does one evaluate the minimum TXOP duration? Need mechanism to determine if the TXOP duration request is for a single frame Parameters that vary during time. Even within the same TXOP Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

TXOP Requests in Time - Scales May 2002 TXOP Requests in Time - Scales 9 bits available for the request. Bit 9 indicates if it is time or queue size. Only 8 available The maximum TXOP duration that can be requested up to day is 4.096 milliseconds (very less) We need two scales: Of the 8 bits 1 bit should set aside to clarify the scale of the request being made: If bit 8 equal to 0: scale of 32 sec (32 sec -> 4096 sec) If bit 8 equal to 1: scale of 256 sec (256 sec -> 32768 sec) Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

TXOP Requests based on Queue Length May 2002 TXOP Requests based on Queue Length QSTA need NOT determine the time required, so simple at QSTA side. Scheduler at HC needs to determine the TXOP time to be allocated using the queue size information, so the complexity is passed to the HC/QAP side. An scheduling algorithm based on queue size may be optimal if the HC has some information regarding the traffic characteristics Main Problems at HC side are Determining Rate (Transmission rate from QSTA to HC) Determining Fragment Size (Based on Queue length as there may be more than one fragments. This may vary frame to frame) Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

TXOP Requests based on Queue Length May 2002 TXOP Requests based on Queue Length Problem for Prioritized QoS: If Parameterized QoS, the HC knows information regarding the stream (minimum rate, nominal MSDU/MPDU size). This is necessary to compute TXOP duration based on queue size information If Prioritized QoS, the HC does not know which is the nominal MSDU size - so difficult to determine TXOP duration. However the HC can “monitor” the traffic from a QSTA an easily determine the frame/fragment size and the data rate used. Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 Conclusions An scheduling algorithm based on “queue size” can be optimal. TXOP requests in time can be arbitrary. The scheduling algorithm will always be sub-optimal. Change all the requests to bytes. Having two methods to request a TXOP can be confusing and complicated to implement. Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research

May 2002 Motion Move to remove “TXOP duration request” in the QoS Control field and all the references from the 802.11e draft Sai Shankar et al., Philips Research