Doc. :IEEE 802.11-02/314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier.

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 /402r0 Submission July 2001 Baruch Altman, CommPrize Inc.Slide 1 H²CF: Hiperlan2 Hybrid Coordination Function; Ideas on coexistence.
Doc.: IEEE /0104r1 SubmissionLiwen Chu Etc.Slide 1 Fragmentation with A-MPDU Date: Authors: Date: Jan, 2012.
Doc: IEEE /705ar0 Submission Javier del Prado et. al November 2002 Slide 1 Mandatory TSPEC Parameters and Reference Design of a Simple Scheduler.
A-MPDU Delimiter Changes
Submission Page 1 August 2002 doc.: IEEE /503r0 Daryl Kaiser, Cisco Systems Radio Measurement: A Candidate Approach Daryl Kaiser (Cisco Systems)
Doc.: IEEE /372r0 A New Approach to the NAV June, 2001 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 A New Approach to the NAV Author: Matthew.
Doc.: IEEE /412r0 Submission S. Choi, Philips Research July 2001 Slide 1 Aligning e HCF and h TPC Operations Amjad Soomro, Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /301R0 Submission May 2002 Terry Cole, AMDSlide 1 A More Efficient Protection Mechanism Terry Cole AMD Fellow +1.
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 /0859r0 July 2012 Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Inc Short Block Ack Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /380r0 Submission May 2002 Duncan Kitchin, IntelSlide WG Assigned Numbers Authority Duncan Kitchin Intel Corporation.
Doc.:IEEE /525Ar0 Submission September 2002 Mathilde Benveniste, Avaya Labs Slide 1 Simplifying Polling Mathilde Benveniste
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 /0640r0 Submission Jun Li, Thomson Inc..Slide 1 Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ Date:
Doc.: IEEE /492r0 Submission Lim Wei Lih, Matsushita Electric Ind. Slide 1 July 2001 Comments on AV transmission Recommended Practice Yasuo HARADA,
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 /321r0 Submission May 2002 Y. Liu, et al Slide 1 CC/RR Performance Evaluation Yonghe Liu, Jin-meng Ho, Matthew B. Shoemake, Jie Liang.
Doc.: IEEE /0229r0 SubmissionAssaf Kasher, Intel BF Corrections presentation Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /0342r0 SubmissionLiwen Chu Etc.Slide 1 Power Efficient PS Poll Date: Authors: Date: March, 2012.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0328r0 Nokia Internal Use Only March 2012 Slide 1 Date: Authors: PS-Poll Enhancements Chittabrata Ghosh, Nokia.
Doc.: IEEE /1325r0 Submission Nov PS-Poll TXOP Date: Authors: David Xun Yang, Huawei, et. al.Slide 1.
PS-Poll TXOP Using RTS/CTS Protection
Doc.: IEEE /594r0 Submission September 2002 M. Benveniste & D. Chen, Avaya Labs ResearchSlide 1 PF Differentiation and EDCF/RR Mathilde Benveniste.
Doc.: IEEE /0567r0 Submission Slide 1Michelle Gong, Intel May 2010 DL MU MIMO Analysis and OBSS Simulation Results Date: Authors:
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 /1123r0 Submission September 2010 Zhu/Kim et al 1 Date: Authors: [TXOP Sharing for DL MU-MIMO Support]
Slide 1 doc.: IEEE /1092r0 Submission Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Incorporated September 2010 Slide 1 ACK Protocol and Backoff Procedure for MU-MIMO.
TIM Compression Date: Authors: January 2012 Month Year
Doc.: IEEE /xxxr0 Submission January 2004 Mathilde Benveniste, Avaya Labs -- ResearchSlide 1 Clarifications on APSD Mathilde Benveniste Avaya.
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 /195 Submission July 2000 Sunghyun Choi, Philips ResearchSlide 1 Dynamic Channel Selection (DCS) Scheme for G. Cervello, S.
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
Triggered QoS Measurements
EDCF TCID, Queues, and Access Parameters Relationship
EDCF TXOP Bursting Simulation Results
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
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
PCF vs. DCF: Limitations and Trends
doc.: IEEE /xxx Authors:
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
Interworking with 802.1Qat Stream Reservation Protocol
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
HCCA TXOP handling difficulties
Schedule Element Synchronization and Simplification
802.11g Contention Period – Solution for Co-existence with Legacy
July 2004 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Modified Delayed (Dly) Acknowledgement for.
Proposed Resolution for Draft 3.0
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Triggered QoS Measurements
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?
Presentation transcript:

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 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

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 2 May 2002 Outline QoS Control Field - Overview Problem Statement: Making a TXOP Request TXOP Requests in time TXOP Requests in Queue Size Conclusions

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 3 May 2002 References Bobby Jose, “Contention Free TXOP Request and Allocation Issues,” IEEE /248r0 Bobby Jose, “Updated QoS Control Field,” IEEE /290r0 IEEE e QoS draft D2.0a

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 4 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 identifies TID

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 5 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?

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 6 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

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 7 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

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 8 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 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 ->  sec)

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 9 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)

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 10 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.

doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 11 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.