doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 1 WLAN-3GPP Interworking Metric Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Background 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 (RAN2) is developing a mechanism for interworking (IW) between 3GPP RATs (UMTS and LTE) and WLAN –3GPP had sent a liaison statement to IEEE in April 2014 (11-14/0519r0) –IEEE responded as in 11-14/0658r6 See next slide Discouraged use of RCPI and RSNI July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 2

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Previous Liaisons July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 3 Questions in liaison statement from 3GPP (11-14/0519r0) Response from IEEE to 3GPP (11-14/0658r6) Question 1: Does IEEE WG consider WLAN RCPI a suitable metric of WLAN signal strength such that it can be compared to thresholds as in the above described mechanism? We consider the RCPI value as defined in IEEE ™-2012 a metric for signal strength. Question 2: Does IEEE WG consider WLAN RSNI a suitable metric of WLAN signal quality such that it can be compared to thresholds as in the above described mechanism? We consider the RSNI value as defined in IEEE ™-2012 a metric for signal quality in downlink direction.

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Previous Liaisons (Cont’d) July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 4 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 (RAN2) is developing a mechanism for inter-working between 3GPP RATs (UMTS and LTE) and WLAN –3GPP had sent a liaison statement to IEEE [1] in April 2014, to which the IEEE responded as in [2] Questions in liaison statement from 3GPP (11-14/0519r0) Response from IEEE to 3GPP (11-14/0658r6) Question 3: Does IEEE WG consider any other WLAN signal metric more suitable for the above described mechanism? Understanding that the objective of the mechanism is to select the network that provides the best match to the QoS and/or throughput requirements of the system, the consideration of RNSI/RCPI is not sufficient on its own to efficiently estimate the available throughput and QoS that will be experienced in the IEEE WLAN. Other metrics should be taken into account, especially channel bandwidth, operating band, number of spatial streams, BSS load, and WAN metrics, see also the attached Table 1. Comparing only the RSNI/RCPI, as is, to thresholds presents some risks of poor decisions. Ideally, a single parameter, such as estimated available throughput, which combines all of the above parameters, would be determined inside of the WLAN modem and then delivered to the upper layers.

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Further Background 3GPP RAN2 is still using RCPI and RSNI as the PHY metrics for WLAN-3GPP IW –ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_86/Docs/R zipftp://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_ran/WG2_RL2/TSGR2_86/Docs/R zip –ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zipftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zip –ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zipftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zip –ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zipftp://ftp.3gpp.org/TSG_RAN/TSG_RAN/TSGR_64/Docs/RP zip 3GPP RAN2 had requested 3GPP SA2 to include RCPI and RSNI in the requirements documents –RAN2 is the PHY standards group –SA2 is the Architecture requirements group During discussion in 3GPP SA2, additional issues were found for RCPI and RSNI –ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_104_Dublin/Docs/S zipftp://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_104_Dublin/Docs/S zip This contribution describes additional issues with using RCPI and RSNI for WLAN-3GPP IW, and proposes way forward for WLAN- 3GPP IW July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 5

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission RSNI July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 6

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Definition of RSNI in IEEE IEEE P REVmc/D3.0 P.24 P.40

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Definition of RSNI in IEEE (Cont’d) IEEE P REVmc/D Noise Histogram report: P

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Example STA1 is DUT BSS1 and BSS2 have partially overlapping channel –Also, AP2 close to STA1 –But BSS2 is lightly loaded. So, channel is clear for BSS1 most of the time. Good candidate for 3GPP  WLAN roaming for STA1 Assume noise floor of -96 dBm/20 MHz at STA1 RX STA1 AP1 AP2 STA2 BSS1: VHT MHz BSS2: VHT MHz BSS1 BSS2 80 MHz 40 MHz

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Example Time AP2  STA2 -40 dBm AP1  STA1 -60 dBm AP1  STA1 -65 dBm Frequency [MHz] Over what period should ANPI be measured?? Not clearly defined in the standard BSS1 Primary20

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Example Case 1 ANPI measured here (no interference)

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Example Case 2 ANPI measurement duration includes interference packet. STA1 cannot RX this packet (does not use Primary20 of BSS1). Thus, this should be included in ANPI. Note that this is not a ‘corner case’ scenario

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Example Before receiving the first green packet, STA1 RX likely listening to the entire 80 MHz –Don’t know the BW of the next packet coming in. –Need to perform CCA on 80 MHz Then, should be ANPI for the first green packet be over 20 MHz or 80 MHz? –Of course, a ‘logical’ answer is that it should be over 20 MHz (-96 dBm), not 80 MHz (-90 dBm) –But the point here is that the standard does not define this clearly – yet another example of potential pitfall. Case 3 ANPI measurement What should be the ANPI used for this packet??

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Other Notes What if DUT has multiple RX antennas? –How is ANPI defined? Average over RX chains? Summed over RX chains? –Not defined clearly in the IEEE standard  Interop issue expected w/o further clarification RSNI measurement is optional RSNI is NOT RSRQ in 3GPP –RSRQ = Reference Signal Received Quality Roughly speaking, SINR –RSNI does not measure the interference ‘present’ in the packet –Rather, the interference is measured during ‘idle’ time some time before the packet arrives That interference may or may not be present in the packets the DUT is receiving

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Summary – RSNI RSNI is currently broken –RSNI definition fails (numerically cannot be computed) in some cases –Many ambiguities exists WLAN-3GPP IW should not be based on a metric which is broken RSNI is not RSRQ

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission RCPI AND RSSI July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 16

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission RCPI vs. RSSI RCPI and RSSI are similar in nature –RCPI is the power measured during the data portion of the packet –RSSI is the power measured during the preamble portion of the packet HT/VHT preamble in case of HT/VHT PPDUs –Signal power between preamble and data are the same –There is minor difference in noise bandwidth RCPI assumes noise equivalent BW 1.1 times greater than the channel BW No noise equivalent BW specified for RSSI Difference should be small Measurement accuracy –Dominated by analog gain inaccuracy, not digital power measurement inaccuracy RCPI and RSSI should be able to achieve similar accuracy Accuracy requirement in IEEE –RCPI has a ±5 dB (95% confidence interval) accuracy requirement, while RSSI does not. But as mentioned above, there is no reason why RSSI cannot achieve similar accuracy as RCPI

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission RSSI is Mandatory RCPI is optional RSSI, on the other hand, is mandatory –Used for CCA CCA is key functionality of CSMA, which all WLAN devices have to implement –IEEE P802.11REVmc/D3.0: P2674

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission RSSI Unit RSSI unit in IEEE is a ‘relative’ dB, not an ‘absolute’ dBm But since RSSI is used for CCA –CCA is in absolute dBm –Thus, RSSI in absolute dBm is implicitly available

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Other Ambiguities Multiple RX chains –RCPI for DSSS/CCK and NON_HT OFDM PPDUs does not specify how to deal w/ multiple RX chains E.g. Average over RX chains? Summed over RX chains? HT/VHT PPDUs specify that the RCPI is averaged over RX chains –RSSI also does not specify how to deal w/ multiple RX chains

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Summary – RSSI vs. RCPI RSSI and RCPI convey essentially the same information –RCPI is optional –RSSI is mandatory Both RSSI and RCPI has some ambiguities to be clarified

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission BEACON VS. DATA July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 22

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission What Packet Should be Used? Before WLAN has associated w/ an AP –There is no traffic. Only Beacon RSSI is available. When performing active scan, Probe Response RSSI would be available instead of Beacon RSSI But typically, Probe Response and Beacon are both sent in the lowest supported rate After WLAN has associated w/ an AP –If device is using 3GPP link as the main data pipe, then WLAN will not have much traffic WLAN will likely be in DTIM mode to save power –Again, only beacon RSSI is available Even if data traffic is available –Devices often change TX power as a function of MCS Several dB of TX power difference between the lowest rate and the highest rate is not uncommon –Hence, for the same path loss, data packet RSSI could vary considerably just because of TX power Receiver has no information on what the TX power was –Hence, data packet RSSI is not suitable for link quality assessment

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Beacon RSSI P REVmc D3.0 –P513L54 July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 24

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Summary – Beacon vs. Data RSSI Beacon RSSI is always available –Before association –After association, w/ and w/o traffic Data packet RSSI is not as reliable for link quality accessment –Function of TX power, which is implementation specific (i.e. can change drastically)

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission SUGGESTED WAY FORWARD July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 26

doc.: IEEE /0890r0 Submission Suggested Way Forward Communicate the following to 3GPP –Do not use RSNI for IW Fixing RSNI would take some effort Besides, RSNI does not necessarily reflect interference present in the packet. Hence, benefit for WLAN-3GPP IW is not clear –Replace RCPI w/ Beacon RSSI Need some clarifications in the IEEE –Please see 11-14/0921 for details of the proposed changes July 2014 Youhan Kim, QualcommSlide 27