doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 Smart Grid Technology Information - May 2010 Date: Abstract: Information on technology for inclusion in the June 2010 NIST PAP#2 Report NameCompanyAddressPhone Bruce KraemerMarvell5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, Kaberi Banerjee

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 2 Application Information Can we further clarify the Smart Grid applications? Huge amount of information developed by Open SG Example: ents/SG-NET%20PAP%20work-in- progress/Diagrams-wip/SG-NET-diagram-r0.5e.pdfhttp://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Docum ents/SG-NET%20PAP%20work-in- progress/Diagrams-wip/SG-NET-diagram-r0.5e.pdf

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 3

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 4 Listing of pertinent use cases In order to create a list of functional requirements for the Smart Grid, an exercise was performed to list all pertinent use cases that involve network communication. Sources for this information include the Southern California Edison Use Cases, Grid Wise Architectural Console use cases, EPRI and others. Use cases from all of these sources were selected based upon a network requirements basis. From this research the following high level use cases have been identified

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Uses cases documented

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 6 Discussion Topics from Monday May 16 There are many pieces of simulation already provided and others being constructed. Can we provide further guidance on how the data could be used to help engineer a network? Can we begin by providing guidance on how to interpret and use the model outputs e.g average and instantaneous throughput? (Dave Halasz) smartgridnistmodeloutput.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/10/ smartgridnistmodeloutput.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 7 Discussion Topics from Monday May has agreed that CCMP is thebest security machanism to use. Since it will be used in further technical descriptions and modeling we need to further characterize the security mechanism CCMP. (Dave Halasz) smartgridccmpoverhead.ppt

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 8 Documentation Comprehensive review of NIST report draft on next Smart Grid call Wed June 2.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Project Plans What nees to be done to further enhance technology for Smart Grid applications? Increase low bit rate range ; S1G re channelize, <1000 MHz –Project under way – speedy conclusion and demonstrations needed Complete mesh capability: Suitable features are in S, –Project 2/3 complete. Need to complete specification to build vendor and user confidence Other evolutionary needs?? Low power: need to demonstrate how to provide WLAN devices with 10 year+ battery life

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 10 Technical Capabilities Focused discussion on how to maximize battery life with existing radio and protocol options. Exploration of (near term) improvements based only upon protocol extensions. Exploration of (longer term) improvements based upon PHY changes and protocol extensions.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 11 Following Material Discussion Topics from Monday May 16

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 12 Introduction to the NIST PAP2 Report Report Preface This guide is the output of the Priority Action Plan number 2 (PAP#2), wireless communications for the smart grid, which is part of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP). PAP#2’s work area investigates the strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and constraints of existing and emerging standards- based physical media for wireless communications. The approach is to work with the appropriate standard development organizations (SDOs) to determine the characteristics of each technology for Smart Grid application areas and types. Results are used to assess the appropriateness of wireless communications technologies for meeting Smart Grid applications’ requirements. This guide contains the smart grid reference architecture, the user applications’ requirements, candidate wireless technologies and their capabilities, a methodology to assess the appropriateness of wireless communications technologies along with an example model, and some results.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Priority Action Plan for Wireless communications (PAP#2) McLean, VA May 6, 2010 NIST

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Scope of PAP 2 deliverable Guidelines for the use of wireless communications in different Smart Grid domains: Identify different Smart Grid application communication requirements Describe how well wireless communication technologies can support Smart Grid applications: Describe an evaluation approach to point out performance trends and issues Intended audience: All smart grid stakeholders including utility operators, network/communication vendors, professional and technical associations, standard setting organizations, local, state and federal agencies involved in policy, rules, and funding related to Smart Grid.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Administrative logistics Ownership: SGIP – PAP 2 No document control No copyright protection Make this a NIST Internal Report in order to provide document control and copyright Review process within PAP 2/SGIP: Consensus within PAP 2 NIST Internal review process Public release and revision: 1 st draft to be completed by June 30, 2010 Subsequent revisions as necessary

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Review of draft document

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Section 6: Findings and results

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Does wireless technology X meet SG-NET requirements Y? 2.How to cover smart grid devices deployed using a particular wireless technology? 3.How many devices can a wireless technology support? For a specific topology and traffic characteristics 4.How well can device mobility be supported and what is the impact on the user application performance? 5.How well can wireless interference be tolerated and what is the impact on the user application performance? Key questions to answer

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 19 Caveats and things to keep in mind PAP 2 is about wireless communications therefore performance evaluation is conducted at layers 1 & 2 and on a link by link basis –A link by link performance assessment is necessary but not sufficient to assess the end-to- end performance. In order to relate wireless communications to the application communication requirements, there is a need to make assumptions regarding the presence of protocol layers above layer 2 and their mutual interactions: –Include all protocol layer overhead in size of data transmitted –Derive performance bounds within stated assumptions Performance results and quantitative numbers are always related to a specific scenario including topology, traffic characteristics, and for a given technology –General performance trends emerge based on the relationship between the various performance metrics and the input parameters.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 20 Performance metrics Reliability (data transfer): the probability that a data packet successfully reaches its destination Reliability (connectivity) or Outage probability: the probability that a device cannot establish a link at maximum transmit power Delay: the time elapsed for a data packet to successfully reach its destination, including the time spent in queuing, transmission, propagation, retransmission, processing. Throughput : the packet data size in bits divided by the time it takes to reach its destination

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 21 Input parameters Topology –Number of devices –coverage in cell radius (meters) or distance between transmitter and receiver Traffic –Offered Load (bandwidth) –Size of the data to be transmitted (bits) –Data interarrival time (seconds) Environment –Propagation Technology –Bit rate –Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP)

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 22 Sample output:offered load varies while the number of devices is fixed Plots show Reliability, Throughput, Delay, and queue blocking probability metrics versus the application offered load. The plots show a common breakpoint indicated by the dashed line (at about 6.5 kb/s) where all the metrics show significant performance degradation. Breakpoint location depends on network parameters (e.g. number of stations), and on the MAC layer technology.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 23 Example showing effect of varying other network parameters Example plots show Reliability, Throughput, Delay, and Pr{blocking} metrics for R max = 300 m, all other parameters the same. The plot below shows the offered load breakpoint vs. R max.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 24 Section 6 structure alternatives By link –Using technology x discuss performance trends and breakpoints, i.e. reliability, delay, throughput versus number of devices, coverage, environment OR By application category –Using technology x discuss performance trends and breakpoints, i.e. reliability, delay, throughput versus number of devices, coverage, environment

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 25 Section 6 outline 6.1 Performance metrics 6.2 Input parameters 6.3 General performance trends 6.4 By link discussion Technology X Technology Y OR 6.4 By application category discussion Technology X Technology Y

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Tools & results validation

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Priority Action Plan for Wireless communications (PAP#2) McLean, VA May 6, 2010 NIST

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Scope of PAP 2 deliverable Guidelines for the use of wireless communications in different Smart Grid domains: Identify different Smart Grid application communication requirements Describe how well wireless communication technologies can support Smart Grid applications: Describe an evaluation approach to point out performance trends and issues Intended audience: All smart grid stakeholders including utility operators, network/communication vendors, professional and technical associations, standard setting organizations, local, state and federal agencies involved in policy, rules, and funding related to Smart Grid.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Administrative logistics Ownership: SGIP – PAP 2 No document control No copyright protection Make this a NIST Internal Report in order to provide document control and copyright Review process within PAP 2/SGIP: Consensus within PAP 2 NIST Internal review process Public release and revision: 1 st draft to be completed by June 30, 2010 Subsequent revisions as necessary

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Review of draft document

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Section 6: Findings and results

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Does wireless technology X meet SG-NET requirements Y? 2.How to cover smart grid devices deployed using a particular wireless technology? 3.How many devices can a wireless technology support? For a specific topology and traffic characteristics 4.How well can device mobility be supported and what is the impact on the user application performance? 5.How well can wireless interference be tolerated and what is the impact on the user application performance? Key questions to answer

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 33 Caveats and things to keep in mind PAP 2 is about wireless communications therefore performance evaluation is conducted at layers 1 & 2 and on a link by link basis –A link by link performance assessment is necessary but not sufficient to assess the end-to- end performance. In order to relate wireless communications to the application communication requirements, there is a need to make assumptions regarding the presence of protocol layers above layer 2 and their mutual interactions: –Include all protocol layer overhead in size of data transmitted –Derive performance bounds within stated assumptions Performance results and quantitative numbers are always related to a specific scenario including topology, traffic characteristics, and for a given technology –General performance trends emerge based on the relationship between the various performance metrics and the input parameters.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 34 Performance metrics Reliability (data transfer): the probability that a data packet successfully reaches its destination Reliability (connectivity) or Outage probability: the probability that a device cannot establish a link at maximum transmit power Delay: the time elapsed for a data packet to successfully reach its destination, including the time spent in queuing, transmission, propagation, retransmission, processing. Throughput : the packet data size in bits divided by the time it takes to reach its destination

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 35 Input parameters Topology –Number of devices –coverage in cell radius (meters) or distance between transmitter and receiver Traffic –Offered Load (bandwidth) –Size of the data to be transmitted (bits) –Data interarrival time (seconds) Environment –Propagation Technology –Bit rate –Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP)

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 36 Sample output:offered load varies while the number of devices is fixed Plots show Reliability, Throughput, Delay, and queue blocking probability metrics versus the application offered load. The plots show a common breakpoint indicated by the dashed line (at about 6.5 kb/s) where all the metrics show significant performance degradation. Breakpoint location depends on network parameters (e.g. number of stations), and on the MAC layer technology.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 37 Example showing effect of varying other network parameters Example plots show Reliability, Throughput, Delay, and Pr{blocking} metrics for R max = 300 m, all other parameters the same. The plot below shows the offered load breakpoint vs. R max.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 38 Section 6 structure alternatives By link –Using technology x discuss performance trends and breakpoints, i.e. reliability, delay, throughput versus number of devices, coverage, environment OR By application category –Using technology x discuss performance trends and breakpoints, i.e. reliability, delay, throughput versus number of devices, coverage, environment

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 39 Section 6 outline 6.1 Performance metrics 6.2 Input parameters 6.3 General performance trends 6.4 By link discussion Technology X Technology Y OR 6.4 By application category discussion Technology X Technology Y

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Tools & results validation

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 41 Report Outline Table of Contents Revision History iii Preface Authors Overview of the process Acronyms and Definitions Acronyms Definitions Smart grid Reference Architecture List of actors Use Cases Application requirements Smart grid user applications’ quantitative requirements Aggregation of requirements per actor to actor Wireless Technology Evaluation approach / Modeling approach Channel Models Indoor-indoor environments Outdoor-outdoor environments Outdoor-indoor environments Physical Layer MAC sublayer Example Modeling Tool Other Tools Findings / Results Conclusions References Bibliography

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 42 Section 4 – Wireless Technology -Contents Outline Introduction The data collection form –Group categories –Row descriptions Clarification of the row entry Technology information (Columns) –Technology names –Technology sources –Explanation of Entries & Validation source Per Technology descriptions –Completed –Under development Reference Sources

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 43 Wireless Characteristics 1. Link Availability 2. Data/Media Type Supported 3. Coverage Area 4. Mobility 5. Data Rates 6. RF Utilization 7. Data Frames & Packets 8. Link Quality Optimization 9. Radio Performance Measurment & Management 10. Power Management 11. Connection Topologies 12. Connection Management 13. QoS & Traffic Prioritization 14. Location Characterization 15. Security & Security Management 16. Radio Environment 17. Intra-technology Coexistence 18. Inter-technology Coexistence 19. Unique Device Identification 20. Technology Specification Source 21. Deployment Domain Characterization 22. Exclusions

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 44 Wireless Technologies Cdma2000 1x and cdma2000 HRPD Cdma2000 xHRDP GMR-1 3G IPOS/DVB-S2 RSM-A IEEE e,m IEEE IEEE Inmarsat BGAN LTE HSPA+ UMTS EDGE

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 45 Technology Description and Behavior in support of Throughput calculations Range Calculations Security

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 46 Technology Description Clarifications

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 47 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data; 2.1 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data; Over the air PHY rate What is the meaning of Data? It is in measurement units of Maximum user data rate per user in Mb/s. Since gives 0.25 Mb/s one might assume that it is the physical medium rate. However with that assumption, it does not apply to the value for of 0.70 Mb/s. Therefore one must assume another meaning. For example data rate minus protocol (and/or framing) overhead results in 0.70 Mb/s (i.e., maximum user data rate (i.e., MAC Service Data Unit)), if so then the value must be changed to comply with that assumption. Agreement on a consistent meaning of Data is needed. Is it the maximum user data rate seen at the interface to/from the MAC sublayer? Is it an instantaneous data rate? Since it states Maximum user data rate per user, perhaps the number of users that was assumed for the calculation needs to be stated as well, especially when the medium is shared as in and

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Group 5: Data Rates items c and d (Peak goodput over the air UL/DL data rate) How is the goodput calculated? Is goodput strictly calculated on a single MAC sublayer frame’s payload divided by the resulting physical layer packet? Is the goodput calculated including any CSMA overhead and the entire message exchange (e.g., data frame and acknowledgement frame)? Both and can act as either peer to peer (p2p) or AP to/from STA for or coordinator to/from device for So for the peer case UL and DL would be the same. However for the non- P2P case UL and DL might be different. Both and use the same channel in this case, but the protocol overhead might be different (e.g., polling a PAN coordinator to retreive data vs device sending to PAN coordinator for ). Clarification (i.e., note) on the type of mode that is being used to achieve the values for the data rates is needed.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Sample peak goodput for baseline Was not able to obtain 0.7 Mb/s, assuming only data transmission overhead for one data frame transmission and its associated acknoledgement. What other additional overhead assumptions were assumed? Beacon transmission? RTS/CTS? Association and authentication procedures? (A) Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + zero backoff + long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF; a peak throughput of Mb/s (B) Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS backoff slots (average first attempt successful)+ long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF and DS; a peak throughput of Mb/s.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 50 Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size What is meant by frame? What is meant by packet? Are they the same or different?

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size What is meant by frame? There are three primary Frame group types identified in Management, Control & Data. Payload data is transported inside a data frame. The Data Frame is composed of a number of sub fields: control field, duration field, address fields, sequence field, data, frame check sequence. This collection of fields is referred to as a MAC Protocol Data Unit (MPDU). The source payload data may fit into one frame or if larger than 2312 bytes requires fragmentation and transmission using multiple data frames. When the MPDU is prepared to send out over the air there are additional fields added for preamble, start of frame delimiter and header. These fields then comprise the Physical Layer Packet Data Unit (PPDU). What is meant by packet? “Packet” is a general term that refers to the combination of control, address, and data fields described above that includes the payload data of interest. Are they the same or different? When the terms Packet and Frame are used without further qualifiers they can be considered to be equivalent.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 52 Technology Description Protocol Details

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 53 Frame Control (2 bytes) Frame Control (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) QoS Control (2 bytes) QoS Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) MAC and Physical Layer Data Frame Encapsulation (Ref: Draft P REVmb/D3.0, March 2010) MSDU Frame CheckSum (4 bytes) MAC MSDU CCMP Header (8 bytes) MAC Header LLC MIC (8 bytes) MIC (8 bytes) PHY MPDU PHY Layer Specific PPDU ( Example : OFDM Phy, Clause 17) PLCP Header PLCP Preamble PSDU Tail Pad Bytes

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide MAC and Physical Layer Control Frame Encapsulation (Ref: Draft P REVmb/D3.0, March 2010) Frame Control (2 bytes) Frame Control (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Optional Address2 (6 bytes) Optional Address2 (6 bytes) Frame CheckSum (4 bytes) MAC MAC Header LLC PHY MPDU PHY Layer Specific PPDU ( Example : OFDM Phy, Clause 17) PLCP Header PLCP Preamble PSDU Tail Pad Bytes Optional Control Info (BlockAck and BlockAckReq) Optional Control Info (BlockAck and BlockAckReq) Carried Frame Control HT Control Carried Frame

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide MAC and Physical Layer Management Frame Encapsulation (Ref: Draft P REVmb/D3.0, March 2010) LLC Management Frame Body Frame Control (2 bytes) Frame Control (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) Frame CheckSum (4 bytes) MAC Management Frame Body MAC Header LLC PHY MMPDU PHY Layer Specific PPDU ( Example : OFDM Phy, Clause 17) PLCP Header PLCP Preamble PSDU Tail Pad Bytes

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide MAC and Physical Layer Management Frame Encapsulation (Ref: Draft P REVmb/D3.0, March 2010) LLC Management Frame Body Frame Control (2 bytes) Frame Control (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Duration /ID (2 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address1 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address2 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Address3 (6 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) Sequence. Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) HT Control (2 bytes) Frame CheckSum (4 bytes) MAC Management Frame Body MAC Header LLC PHY MMPDU PHY Layer Specific PPDU ( Example : OFDM Phy, Clause 17) PPDU

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 57 Framing

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 58 PHY Header Details The value of the TXTIME parameter returned by the PLME_TXTIME.confirm primitive shall be calculated according to Equation (19-9): TXTIME = PreambleLengthDSSS + PLCPHeaderTimeDSSS + PreambleLengthOFDM + PLCPSignalOFDM + 4 × Ceiling((PLCPServiceBits + 8 × (NumberOfOctets) + PadBits) / NDBPS) + SignalExtension(19-9) where PreambleLengthDSSS is 144 μs if the PREAMBLE_TYPE value from the TXVECTOR parameter indicates “LONGPREAMBLE,” or 72 μs if the PREAMBLE_TYPE value from the TXVECTOR parameter indicates “SHORTPREAMBLE” = or 24+8+

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 59 Resulting Data Message sizes (for this selection) On-demand meter read 100 bytes TLS 25 bytes TransportTCP 20 bytes IP-SEC (Tunnel mode) 80 bytes IPv6 40 bytes IEEE CCMP 16 bytes IEEE bytes DSSS 24 bytes – TOTALS 333 bytes Similarly for Application Error on-demand meter read –TOTALS 283 bytes Similarly for Multiple interval meter read –TOTALS1833 bytes bytes* *Exceeds MTU of must segment into two frames

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 60 Technology Description PHY Details

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide a Throughput

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 62 Behavior

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 63 Relationship between Throughput and Payload Payload Length Throughput Lower SNR High SNR Low SNR

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 64 Effect of payload length on throughput for various retransmission limits (6 Mbps, SNR of 2 dB)

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 65 Throughput versus payload (18 Mbps, SNR 8dB) Mbps 59.2%

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 66 Capacity with 5 data users in the network (SNR is 8 dB, 6 Mbps)

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 67 Throughput Calculations

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 68 Throughput Question (A) Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + zero backoff + long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF; a peak throughput of Mb/s Again, how much detail to provide? What is precise enough? How to account for theory vs practice?

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide Inter-frame Spacing

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 70 Frame Spacing Relationships aSIFSTime and aSlotTime are fixed per PHY. aSIFSTime is: aRxRFDelay + aRxPLCPDelay + aMACProcessingDelay + aRxTxTurnaroundTime. aSlotTime is: aCCATime + aRxTxTurnaroundTime + aAirPropagationTime + aMACProcessingDelay. The PIFS and DIFS are derived by the following equations, as illustrated in Figure PIFS = aSIFSTime + aSlotTime DIFS = aSIFSTime + 2 × aSlotTime The EIFS is derived from the SIFS and the DIFS and the length of time it takes to transmit an ACK Control frame at the lowest PHY mandatory rate by the following equation: EIFS = aSIFSTime + DIFS + ACKTxTime where ACKTxTime is the time expressed in microseconds required to transmit an ACK frame, including preamble, PLCP header and any additional PHY dependent information, at the lowest PHY mandatory rate.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 71 Basic Service Protocol - Listen Before Talk DIFS (listen) 1500 Byte User DATA PPDU 1500 Byte User DATA PPDU SIFS ACK PPDU ACK PPDU 1500 Byte User DATA PPDU 1500 Byte User DATA PPDU SIFS ACK PPDU ACK PPDU DIFS (listen) 10  s 50  s 304  s  s

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 72 Listen Before Talk Protocol DIFS (listen) DATA PPDU DATA PPDU SIFS ACK PPDU ACK PPDU DATA PPDU DATA PPDU SIFS ACK PPDU ACK PPDU DIFS (listen)

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 73 Example throughput calculations - #1 1Mbps PHY rate, DCF, single sender to receiver pair, no backoff

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 74 Example throughput calculations - #2 1Mbps PHY rate, DCF, single sender to receiver pair, minimal backoff

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 75 Example 1: 11b 2Mbps Measured Throughput Analyzing Wireless LAN Security Overhead Harold Lars McCarter Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering 17-Apr-06Falls Church, Virginia

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 76 Example 2: Various Reported Throughputs Huawei Quidway WA1006E Wireless Access Point

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 77 Throughput Validation

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 78 Long preamble Mbit/sNet Mbit/sEfficiency % % % %

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 79 Short Preamble Mbit/sNet Mbit/sEfficiency % % % %

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 80 Short list of citations on Throughput Churong Chen; Choi Look Law;, "Throughput performance analysis and experimental evaluation of IEEE b radio link," Information, Communications & Signal Processing, th International Conference on, vol., no., pp.1-5, Dec doi: /ICICS URL: Na, C.; Chen, J.K.; Rappaport, T.S.;, "Measured Traffic Statistics and Throughput of IEEE b Public WLAN Hotspots with Three Different Applications," Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, vol.5, no.11, pp , November 2006 doi: /TWC URL: Garg, S.; Kappes, M.;, "An experimental study of throughput for UDP and VoIP traffic in IEEE b networks," Wireless Communications and Networking, WCNC IEEE, vol.3, no., pp vol.3, March 2003 doi: /WCNC URL: Bruno, R.; Conti, M.; Gregori, E.;, "Throughput Analysis of UDP and TCP Flows in IEEE b WLANs: A Simple Model and Its Validation," Techniques, Methodologies and Tools for Performance Evaluation of Complex Systems, (FIRB-Perf 2005) Workshop on, vol., no., pp , Sept doi: /FIRB-PERF URL: Mahasukhon, P.; Hempel, M.; Song Ci; Sharif, H.;, "Comparison of Throughput Performance for the IEEE a and g Networks," Advanced Information Networking and Applications, AINA '07. 21st International Conference on, vol., no., pp , May 2007 doi: /AINA URL: Bruno, R.; Conti, M.; Gregori, E.;, "IEEE optimal performances: RTS/CTS mechanism vs. basic access," Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, The 13th IEEE International Symposium on, vol.4, no., pp vol.4, Sept URL:

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 81 New Smart Grid Topic at ITU

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 82 ITU Smart Grid Initiative by ITU Press Office Wed. May 12, 2010 Geneva - Some of the world’s biggest ICT companies have tasked a new ITU group with identifying standards needs for the world’s new Smart Grid deployments, which will bring the benefits of digital technology to the existing electricity network. The Focus Group on Smart Grid will survey existing national standards initiatives to see whether these can be adopted at an international level, and will also perform a gap analysis to identify new standardization requirements that will then be taken forward by relevant ITU-T Study Groups. This exploratory phase will be relatively short before work starts on the development of the standards necessary to support the global rollout of Smart Grid technologies.

doc.: IEEE /0505r1 Submission May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 83 TSAG - Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group The ultimate aim of the Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) is to make the ITU-T the most attractive place to come to do standards work. To this end and in recognition of the increasingly dynamic environment of information and communication technologies, TSAG overhauled ITU-T working methods to streamline approval procedures for new work items and the resulting international standards. This means that on average, a standard (ITU-T Recommendation) which took as much as four years to approve 10 years ago can now be approved in about eight weeks. For Recommendations which might have policy or regulatory implications, approval takes about nine months to allow additional consultation with the world’s governments.