Doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Interpretations of Backoff Menzo Wentink Intersil

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Nick Feamster CS 4251 Computer Networking II Spring 2008
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /144 Submission March 2001 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 An E-DCF Proposal Using TCMA Mathilde Benveniste AT&T Labs,
Doc.: IEEE /351 Submission October 2000 Maarten Hoeben, Menzo Wentink, IntersilSlide 1 Enhance D-QoS through Virtual DCF Maarten Hoeben, Menzo.
Doc.: IEEE /630r1a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research November 2001 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
Doc.: IEEE /594r0 Submission September 2002 M. Benveniste & D. Chen, Avaya Labs ResearchSlide 1 PF Differentiation and EDCF/RR Mathilde Benveniste.
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 /0517r0 May 2013 Submission Slide 1 Authors: Combining Process in Virtual CS Mechanism for ah Date: Lv kaiying, ZTE.
Doc.: IEEE /289r0 Submission Bobby Jose,Slide 1 March 2002 CC/RR Alternatives HCF Adhoc Discussion Work Sheet V00.04 Bobby Jose, et.al
Submission doc.: IEEE /1508r0 November 2014 Edward Reuss, UnaffiliatedSlide 1 Link Margin Comments on Letter Ballot 203 Date: Authors:
Achieving Quality of Service in Wireless Networks A simulation comparison of MAC layer protocols. CS444N Presentation By: Priyank Garg Rushabh Doshi.
Dynamic Bandwidth Scheduling for QoS Enhancement over IEEE WLAN Sangwook Kang, Sungkwan Kim, Mingan Wang, Sunshin An Korea University European Wireless.
802.11n MAC layer simulation Submitted by: Niv Tokman Aya Mire Oren Gur-Arie.
Copyright © 2003, Dr. Dharma P. Agrawal and Dr. Qing-An Zeng. All rights reserved. 1 Chapter 6 Multiple Radio Access.
1 QoS Schemes for IEEE Wireless LAN – An Evaluation by Anders Lindgren, Andreas Almquist and Olov Schelen Presented by Tony Sung, 10 th Feburary.
Month Year doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0 November 2014
Computer and Data Communications Semester Mohd Nazri Mahmud Session 4a-12 March 2012.
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.
Doc.: IEEE /065r0 Submission January 2001 Brockmann, Hoeben, Wentink (Intersil) g MAC Analysis Menzo Wentink Ron Brockmann.
Doc.: IEEE /0897r0 SubmissionJae Seung Lee, ETRISlide 1 Active Scanning considering Operating Status of APs Date: July 2012.
SubmissionJoe Kwak, InterDigital1 BSS Load: AP Loading Metric for QOS Joe Kwak InterDigital doc: IEEE /0079r1May 2005.
Submission doc.: IEEE /569r1 November 2001 M. Benveniste -- AT&T Labs, ResearchSlide 1 An Access Mechanism for Periodic Contention-Free Sessions.
Doc.: IEEE /0840r1 Submission AP Assisted Medium Synchronization Date: Authors: September 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
An Energy Efficient MAC Protocol for Wireless LANs, E.-S. Jung and N.H. Vaidya, INFOCOM 2002, June 2002 吳豐州.
Doc.: IEEE /1152r0 Submission September 2015 Menzo Wentink, QualcommSlide 1 Moderated Backoff Date: September 1, 2015 Authors: NameCompanyAddressPhone .
doc.: IEEE /243r2 Submission May 2001 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 Proposed Changes to the e D1.0 Draft Mathilde Benveniste.
Doc.: IEEE /336 Submission November 2000 Michael Fischer, Intersil Slide 1 The PIFS Ambiguity A tutorial on some practical limitations to the.
Doc.: IEEE /243r1 Submission May 2001 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 Proposed Changes to the e D1.0 Draft Mathilde Benveniste.
SubmissionJoe Kwak, InterDigital1 BSS Load: AP Loading Metric for QOS Joe Kwak InterDigital doc: IEEE /0079r0January 2005.
Doc.: IEEE /171 Submission July 2001 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 HCF Access through Tiered Contention Mathilde Benveniste.
Doc.: IEEE /456 Submission December 2000 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 Backward Compatibility of ‘Tiered Contention’ Multiple.
Doc.: IEEE /457 Submission December 2000 Mathilde Benveniste, AT&T Labs - ResearchSlide 1 An Enhanced-DCF Proposal Based on ‘Tiered Contention’
Doc.: IEEE /065r1 Submission January 2002 Brockmann, Hoeben, Wentink (Intersil)Slide g MAC Analysis and Recommendations Menzo Wentink.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0098r0 January 2016 Assaf Kasher, IntelSlide 1 Channel bonding proposals Date: Authors:
Resolutions to Static RTS CTS Comments
Doc.: IEEE /0415r0 Submission April mc CIDs 1136,1118,1458 Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Submission doc.: IEEE /599r1 November 2001 M. Benveniste -- AT&T Labs, ResearchSlide 1 ‘Cyclic Prioritized Multiple Access (CPMA): An Access Mechanism.
November 2000 Jin-Meng Ho, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /367 Submission p-DCF for Prioritized MAC Service Jin-Meng Ho, Sid Schrum, and.
doc.: IEEE /409r0 Submission March 2002 Mathilde BenvenisteSlide 1 Persistence Factors in EDCF Mathilde Benveniste
Submission doc.: IEEE /0085r1 January 2016 Woojin Ahn, Yonsei Univ.Slide 1 Congestion control for UL MU random access Date: Authors:
Submission doc.: IEEE /0102r0 January 2016 Sean Coffey, RealtekSlide 1 High Efficiency Medium Access via Rosters Date:
Doc.:IEEE /566r2 Submission November 2001 S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun.
Submission doc.: IEEE /596r1 November 2001 M. Benveniste -- AT&T Labs, ResearchSlide 1 ‘Neighborhood Capture’ in Wireless LANs Mathilde Benveniste.
AIFS – Revisited Mathilde Benveniste
Mathilde Benveniste Avaya Labs
EA C451 (Internetworking Technologies)
Scheduled DCF vs. Virtual DCF
An Access Mechanism for Periodic Contention-Free Sessions
AP access procedure for UL MU operation
IEEE : Wireless LANs ALOHA, Slotted ALOHA
ECA Overview (Enhanced Contention Access)
AP Service Load: Improved Definition
Neighborhood Capture and OBSS
AIFS – Revisited Mathilde Benveniste
Simulation for EDCF Enhancement Comparison
Remedy to the ‘Missing Ack Problem’
EDCA Backoff Rules Mathilde Benveniste
High Efficiency Medium Access via Rosters
E-DCF with Backoff Adaptation to Traffic
HCF Channel Access And Inter-BSS Channel Sharing
Access during an MCCAOP by mesh STAs that are not the MCCAOP owner
HCF medium access rules
Neighborhood Capture and OBSS
of the IEEE Distributed Coordination Function
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
NGV Backward Interoperability: Follow-up
Clarification on Beacon Transmission Rules
Chapter 6 Multiple Radio Access.
EDCF Editing Instructions
‘Shield’: Protecting High-Priority Channel Access Attempts
Harmonization for 20MHz Channel Access
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Interpretations of Backoff Menzo Wentink Intersil

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 2 Interpretations of Backoff The interpretations of backoff differ in whether AIFS is considered to be a countdown slot, or not: –No, AIFS is not a countdown slot (AIFS is passive) smallest backoff = 0 is the majority interpretation of , with AIFS=DIFS smallest backoff = 1 is the majority interpretation of TGE D0.1 –Yes, AIFS is a valid countdown slot (AIFS is active) smallest backoff = 0 is not allowed, because it would lead to negative backoff smallest backoff = 1 is the minority interpretation of , with AIFS=DIFS So there are three different backoff behaviors: –passive/AIFS/0- majority interpretation of –passive/AIFS/1- majority interpretation of TGE D0.1 –active/AIFS- minority interpretation of Most people agree that the backoff counter is decremented by one if no energy is detected near the end of a valid countdown slot. If the counter zeroes, the station transmits in the next slot.

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 3 Observations (1) The majority interpretation of DCF in is passive/DIFS/0 –Deferred frames never go at DIFS, but always at or after DIFS+1, because the smallest possible remaining backoff is 1. Only when the initial backoff is 0, a transmission will occur at DIFS. So effectively, the slot immediately after DIFS is wasted for all deferrals. This was likely not the intent of the standard, but it is difficult to interpret the normative text in another way. The majority interpretation of EDCF in TGE D0.1 is passive/AIFS/1 –Both deferred and smallest backoff frames in passive/AIFS/1 go at or after AIFS+1. This means that the effective arbitration time of passive/AIFS/1 is exactly equal to AIFS+1 (which in turn is equal to active/(AIFS+1), see next slide). –passive/AIFS/1 always transmits at or after AIFS+1, although the arbitration time of AIFS does not suggest so. Hence the actual arbitration time in D0.1 EDCF is AIFS+1.

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 4 Observations (2) TGE D0.1 has no QoS level equal to (i.e. passive/DIFS/0) –TGE D0.1 specifies that the backoff is passive/AIFS/1. The closest level to legacy (passive/DIFS/0) would be passive/PIFS/1 (the minority interpretation of DCF), because both levels have a lower transmission bound at DIFS. –Yet passive/PIFS/1 is a higher level than passive/DIFS/0, because it has a one slot countdown advantage after each deferral. The countdown for passive/PIFS/1 is resumed at DIFS (not PIFS, because it is passive), while passive/DIFS/0 only resumes at DIFS+1. Hence the difference between these two ‘DIFS’ levels becomes larger when the load increases, because there will be more deferrals. With every deferral, the backoff difference grows by 1 (see slide 6). passive/AIFS/1  active/(AIFS+1) –passive/AIFS/1 has the exact same behavior as active/(AIFS+1). The slot after a passive AIFS could be interpreted as the ‘activator’ for (AIFS+1) when regarded as one slot (see slide 7). Both passive/AIFS/1 and active/(AIFS+1) never transmit before AIFS+1. –The advantage of using active/AIFS is the fact that AIFS is exactly equal to the effective arbitration time. This is not the case for passive/AIFS/1, because the effective arbitration time would be AIFS+1 instead of AIFS.

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 5 Recommendations for TGE D0.1 The backoff issue can be solved in two ways: 1.Specify whether AIFS is active or passive – preferred solution –Specify explicitly whether AIFS is active or passive, the latter with smallest initial backoff equal to 0, i.e. active/AIFS or passive/AIFS/0. This covers for the full range of possible behaviors, including the minority and majority interpretations of legacy. This solution is preferred because AIFS will always correspond with the real arbitration time. –Whether AIFS is active or passive could either be made normative or be dynamic and specified in the QoS Parameter Set element, along with AIFS itself. The passive/DIFS/0 level must be available. 2.X-faxtor (passive/AIFS/x) –AIFS is passive (i.e. AIFS is not a countdown slot), but the smallest initial backoff x can be 0 or 1. This covers for the full range of possible behaviors, including the minority and majority legacy interpretations. However AIFS does not indicate the true arbitration time for x=1. –This solution is proposed by Mathilde Benveniste in doc r1-E, i.e. backoff=r+x, r=random(0,CW) and x  {0,1} –the x-factor could either be normative or be variable and specified in the QoS Parameter Set element, along with AIFS itself. The passive/DIFS/0 level must be available.

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 6 TX! PIFSslot passive/PIFS/1 vs. passive/DIFS/0 PIFSslot DIFS passive/PIFS/1 passive/DIFS/0 backoff counter: medium busymedium idle 3 3 slot 3 3 The advantage of passive/PIFS/1 over passive/DIFS/0 grows with one slot for each deferral. *** * * = ‘active’ slot boundary deferral

doc.: IEEE /328r0 Submission May 2001 Menzo Wentink, Intersil Slide 7 TX! AIFSslot passive/AIFS/1 vs. active/(AIFS+1) AIFSslot TX! AIFS+1 passive/AIFS/1 active/(AIFS+1) backoff counter: slot 3 2 passive/AIFS/1 and active/(AIFS+1) are equivalent *** *** 32 medium busymedium idle * = ‘active’ slot boundary deferral