Doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 1 CFB Ending Rule under HCF Srinivas Kandala, Ken Nakashima, Yashihiro Ohtani.

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 /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 /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.
PS-Poll TXOP Using RTS/CTS Protection
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
Slide 1 doc.: IEEE /1092r0 Submission Simone Merlin, Qualcomm Incorporated September 2010 Slide 1 ACK Protocol and Backoff Procedure for MU-MIMO.
Doc.: IEEE /879r3 Submission August 2004 Abel Dasylva, Nortel NetworksSlide 1 Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC A. Dasylva,
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-13/0288r0 TXOP Sharing Operation for Relay Date: Slide 1Eric Wong, Broadcom Authors: March 2013.
Doc.: IEEE /0840r1 Submission AP Assisted Medium Synchronization Date: Authors: September 2012 Minyoung Park, Intel Corp.Slide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /452 Submission December, 2000 Michael Fischer, Intersil Slide 1 A Hybrid Coordination Function for QoS Michael Fischer Intersil Corporation.
Doc.: IEEE /0562r0 Submission May 2009 L. Chu et alSlide 1 MCF Issues Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /494r0 Submission July 2001 Michael Fischer, Intersil (TGe Editor)Slide 1 Provisional Tge Ballot Comment Resolutions from the May,
MAC for WLAN Doug Young Suh Last update : Aug 1, 2009 WLAN DCF PCF.
Doc.: IEEE /1086r0 SubmissionSlide 1 Date: Authors: Improved Virtual Carrier Sensing Mechanism for 45GHz Sep ZTE Corp.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0098r0 January 2016 Assaf Kasher, IntelSlide 1 Channel bonding proposals Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /1165r0 Submission November 2005 Fischer (Broadcom), Stephens (Intel) et. al.Slide 1 Joint Proposal MAC Report Notice: This document.
Resolutions to Static RTS CTS Comments
November 2000 Jin-Meng Ho, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /367r1 Submission p-DCF for Prioritized MAC Service (Expanded version based on.
Doc.: IEEE /109r2 Submission March 2001 Michael Fischer, Intersil Slide 1 Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) Frame Exchange and NAV Details Michael.
Submission doc.: IEEE /0087r1 January 2016 Jinsoo Ahn, Yonsei UniversitySlide 1 NAV cancellation issues on MU protection Date: Authors:
Doc.:IEEE /566r2 Submission November 2001 S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /110 Submission May 2000 Sunghyun Choi, Philips ResearchSlide 1 QoS Support in : Contention-Free MAC Perspective Sunghyun Choi.
Definitions of ACK and CTS Timeout
IEEE e Performance Evaluation
Calibration using NDP Vincenzo Scarpa
MCS, NSS, BW and PPDU selection for 11ax
EDCF TCID, Queues, and Access Parameters Relationship
HCF medium access rules
EDCF TXOP Bursting Simulation Results
NAV Protection Mathilde Benveniste Avaya Labs, Research July 2003
CC/RR Performance Evaluation - Revisited
Multicast Group Management
EDCA and BlockAck Extensions for Reliable Multicast/Broadcast Services
NAV Protection Mathilde Benveniste Avaya Labs, Research July 2003
HCF Duration Field Set Rules
Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) Frame Exchange and NAV Details
Proposed resolution text for CCF related CIDs
Calibration using NDP Date: Authors: December 2006
RTS CTS Rule Amendment Date: Authors: Date: January 2011
Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
Terminology Corrections and Improvements for the TGe Draft
BlockAck Enhancement for Multicast Transmissions
HCF Channel Access And Inter-BSS Channel Sharing
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
HCF medium access rules
Clarification on Some HCF Frame Exchange Rules
Objectives of Explicit Feedback rules
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
HT Features in Mesh Network
HCF medium access rules
Acknowledgement for Multicast Streams
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
July 2007 doc.: IEEE /2090r0 Aug 2007 Discussion on CCA Sensing on 20/40 MHz Secondary Channel with PIFS and DIFS Date: Authors: Notice:
80MHz/160MHz Protection Date: Authors: Date: September 2010
HCF medium access rules
NAV Protection Mathilde Benveniste Avaya Labs, Research July 2003
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
802.11g Contention Period – Solution for Co-existence with Legacy
HCF Channel Access And Inter-BSS Channel Sharing
Signaling for Streaming in IEEE e
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
Indicating NGV Capabilities in MAC Header
TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?
Presentation transcript:

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 1 CFB Ending Rule under HCF Srinivas Kandala, Ken Nakashima, Yashihiro Ohtani and Satoshi Terada Sharp Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado Philips Research-USA Briarcliff Manor, New York

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 2 Current Rules for Ending CFB Per e/D1.3, there are five ways : 1.HC received a QoS Data frame with NF=0 and relevant ACK frame. 2.HC received a QoS Null frame with NF=0. 3.HC received a management frame. 4.HC received a legacy data frame. 5.Granted TXOP expired.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 3 Problematic Situation (1) If QoS Data ( NF=0, NoACK=0 ) & its relevant ACK or the QoS Null are not received by the HC correctly, but are received by the other ESTA correctly... –TXOP holder thinks that CFB was finished. –HC does not reclaim the channel until the TXOP limit is expired. –The ESTA that had received this frame, will reset its NAV, and resume the EDCF contention. HC happens to lose the control over the channel.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 4 Solution to Problem (1) Delete the following rules in of IEEE e/D1.3: –"During the CP, when a QoS data type frame is received with an SA value which matches the saved TXOP holder address, has Non-final bit in the QoS control field set to 0, and has No Ack bit in the QoS control field set to 1, the NAV may be reset at the PHY-RXEND.indication corresponding to the QoS data type frame." –"During the CP, when a QoS data type frame is received with an SA value which matches the saved TXOP holder address, has Non-final bit in the QoS control field set to 0, and has No Ack bit in the QoS control field set to 0, the NAV may be reset after (aSIFSTime + QoS CF-Ack_Time) starting at the PHY-RXEND.indication." The above deletion ensures that the ESTAs do not reset their NAVs. ESTAs NAV shall be reset only when they receive a CF-POLL to HC with duration/ID set to 0.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 5 Motion To instruct the editor to incorporate the solution in slide 4 of document 01/605r2.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 6 Problematic Situation (2) The previous change helps, but still: If QoS Data ( NF=0, NoACK=0 ) & its relevant ACK or the QoS Null are not received by the HC correctly... –TXOP holder infers that the control has been transferred back to the HC. –HC does not reclaim the channel until the originally granted TXOP limit expires, and as it is the responsibility of the TXOP holder to attempt any recovery. Results in an under-utilization of channel with channel remaining idle until the granted TXOP expires.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 7 Solution to the Problem (2) The TXOP holder shall send a designated "final frame" addressed to the HC for which an acknowledgement is expected, when it has no further data to send, and if there is enough residual TXOP duration to send a final frame and receive an ACK frame. –Details of the sequences are described after the next slide.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 8 Frame Exchange Sequence (normal sequence) HC Sender Receiver CF-Poll QoS Data S QoS Data CF-Poll ・・・ Other STA NAV from CF-Poll final frame TXOP limit from CF-Poll P NAV from CF-Poll S QoS Data S QoS Data S S ACK QoS Data S SIFS P PIFS S ? Addressed ESTA could not receive this frame correctly but, could hear the CCA of this frame Addressed ESTA could receive this frame correctly. CF-Poll QoS CF-Poll (no data) frame ACK Normal ACK frame QoS Data QoS Data frame

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 9 Frame Exchange Sequence (error recovery sequence) HC Sender Receiver CF-Poll QoS Data S QoS Data CF-Poll ・・・ S ACK Other STA NAV from CF-Poll final frame TXOP limit from CF-Poll P NAV from CF-Poll S QoS Data S QoS Data S? final frame S ? P final frame S ACK QoS Data S SIFS P PIFS S ? Addressed ESTA could not receive this frame correctly but, could hear the CCA of this frame Addressed ESTA could receive this frame correctly. CF-Poll QoS CF-Poll (no data) frame ACK Normal ACK frame QoS Data QoS Data frame

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 10 Candidates for the final frame When there is residual time left in the TXOP: The frames that may be used (addressed to HC) –A unicast QoS Data frame with NF=0, NoACK=0 –A QoS Null frame with NF=0, NoACK = 0 –A unicast management frame –A legacy data frame The frames that can not be used –A unicast QoS Data frame with NoACK = 1 –A QoS Null frame with NoACK = 1 –A frame that is addressed to non-HC ESTA –A multicast frame

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 11 Behavior of the TXOP Holder 1.The TXOP holder sends a final frame to the HC if there is enough time remaining in the TXOP for the final frame and the ACK. 2.If the final frame is sent, the TXOP holder senses the channel for PIFS interval. –If the CCA is idle, it should transmit one of the designated final frame at that time if enough time still remains. –If the CCA is busy it means that the channel control has been successfully transferred and no further action is necessary.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 12 Behavior of the HC 1.The HC sends an ACK when it receives the final frame from the TXOP holder. 2.The HC senses the channel for PIFS interval from the acknowledgement of the transmission –If the CCA is idle, it may send a frame for the next sequence at that time (e.g. QoS CF-Poll).

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 13 Motion To incorporate the normative text in the document 01/605r1. Raju’s amendment : Amend 605r1 to r2 and add If the CCA is busy at the ESTA which is expecting the ACK responseduring the first slot following SIFS after the end of the transmission of the final frame, it means that the channel control has been successfully transferred and no further action is necessary, even though the ACK from HC is not correctly received.

doc.: IEEE /605r3 Submission November 2001 S. Kandala, et. al. Slide 14 And Add an explicit frame that can end a TXOP: –A QoS Null frame with NF=0, NoACK = 0 And add to –all occurrences of QoS Null frame with NoAck=0 with the phrase “TXOP duration requested field set to 0”.