doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov 2013 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)Slide 1 Considerations on WFA feedback Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Summary WFA response from Doc #1443 indicated: –Priority of usage models –Suggestions for additions/modifications to current usage models P2P Traffic modeling Metrics Overall goals In this presentation –Review of mapping between the high priority usage models from #1443 and the simulation scenarios defined so far in # 1001r5 –Discussion on how to use the suggestions Nov 2013 Slide 2Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission High priority Usage Models According to #1443: “Wi-Fi Alliance considers the top-five prioritization of usage scenarios provided by IEEE as follows: –1b Airport / train station –1e E-education –2b Public transportation –3a Dense apartment building –4b Pico-cell street deployment” Next slides review the mapping between above usage models and the existing Simulation Scenarios in #1001r5 Nov 2013 Slide 3Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Mapping between Usage Models and Simulation Scenarios Nov 2013 Slide 4Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) Usage model / Scenario AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic Profile 1b - Airport/train stations 15-20m<120/APManagedIndoor?Flat Compressed video, VPN, Gaming, Internet Scenario m30-72/APManagedIndoorFlat TBD Usage model / Scenario AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic Profile 3a dense apartment building 1/10m5/APUnmanagedIndoorFlat 8k Video, gaming, Web Scenario 1 1/10mN>=5/APUnmanagedIndoorFlat TBD Usage model / Scenario AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic Profile 1 e E-Education ~1/class?~40-60/APManagedIndoorFlat Video; File transfer Scenario 2 1/20m200/APManagedIndoorFlat TBD

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Mapping between Usage Models and Simulation Scenarios Nov 2013 Slide 5Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) Usage model / Scenario AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic Profile 4b Pico-cell street deployment mHighManagedOutdoorFlat ‘similar to cellular’ Scenario 4 (Scenario 4a) 130m50-100ManagedOutdoorFlatTBD Usage model / Scenario AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic Profile 2b public transportation ? (1 or 2 per cabin?) 100/CabinManagedIndoorFlat Onboard entertainment ?

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Summary Mapping –1b Airport / train station  Scenario 3 –1e E-education  Scenario 2 –3a Dense apartment building  Scenario 1 –4b Pico-cell street deployment  Scenario 4 –2b Public transportation  ?? No good match with existing scenarios Is usage model 2b relevant for HEW, in the opinion of the SG? –Usage model 2b is essentially ‘single cell’, which is a departure from ‘Dense scenarios’ scope of HEW High density of STAs but likely just 1 or few APs –Goal of simulation scenarios is to capture key issues, and for proof of solutions –If considered not relevant: our current simulation scenarios are enough –If considered relevant: we need to either add one more scenario, or fit it into an existing one (preferred) E.g. can it fit as a special case of Scenario 2 or 3? Nov 2013 Slide 6Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Other Suggestions Nov 2013 Slide 7Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Suggestions related to P2P projects WFA highlights multiple projects dealing with P2P communications 1.Miracast™ 2.Project A: efficient transport of USB payloads over Wi-Fi links 3.Project B: Device to Device Service discovery Simulation Scenarios doc includes P2P links and P2P traffic models in each scenario (parameters TBD) –P2P data traffic specifications (e.g. Video/Data) can cover 1 and 2 –P2P management traffic specifications can cover 3 Anything else needed in relation to Project B? Nov 2013 Slide 8Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Suggestions related to traffic models Some of the suggestions refer to traffic modeling –1a Stadium - Applications: append “Users are receiving VHD video feed highly compressed (100Mbps) in unicast, multicast and broadcast modes” –1e e-Education – Applications: append “Video streaming among teacher and students in unicast, multicast and broadcast modes” –3a: Applications: append “Online game: a console in an apartment communicates with other consoles on internet at average 1.2 Mbps UL (mixed packets up to 1200 bytes), 0.7 Mbps DL (small packets) critical latency requirement <10ms, packet loss <1%” –3b Community WiFi: Traffic conditions: append “Some proportion of traffic on private SSID by home users, with certain per- service QoE requirements.“ Use case: add “The AP owner wishes to protect QoE of traffic on private SSID from public traffic.” –5b Usage in Stadium – Event Video Production Environment: modify “Outdoor stadium or event space equipped with 30 fixed and mobile cameras. Multiple operators’ WLAN networks and/or adhoc networks of portable video camera devices.” –Applications: modify: Professional usage: 3 3D UHD camera per AP lightly compressed (3.6Gbps). Consumer usage: lightly compressed 4K UHD (600 Mbps)” –Use Case: add: “Consumer usage: In the mean time, a user shoots high quality video or photos and transmits them over WLAN in unicast, multicast or broadcast mode to other users” –1b airports/stations, 1d shopping mall, 4a/b/c street hotspots : Proposal 2: HEW evaluation scenarios incorporate traffic models representing mobile multimedia usages such as voice, video and real-time services – non-full-buffer with mixed packet sizes Typical rates: audio - 224kbps (G.722 stereo); video – kbps (H.264 FHD); <50ms latency, <1% packet loss Traffic models are currently under discussion: I suggest to interested parties to look into WFA feedback when formulating their traffic model proposals Nov 2013 Slide 9Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Suggestions related to metrics I/II Specifically for scenarios 1b airports/stations, 1d shopping mall, 4a/b/c street hotspots, WFA feedback suggests to look at: –Proposal 1: The following evaluation metrics are used for operator networks in these usage models, based on the CDF of per-user throughput (as is typical in 3GPP to highlight user-centric system performance): “cell edge” (5%), average (50%) and area (aggregate) throughputs “fairness” (inverse standard deviation of per-user throughputs) “outage rate” (% of users with links unable to achieve 5 Mbps throughput – a nominal minimum satisfactory rate) –Proposal 3: Evaluation scenarios and metrics support possible technology proposals that may wish to demonstrate enhanced differentiation / prioritization of specific traffic flows / classes within a scenario Nov 2013 Slide 10Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Suggestions related to metrics II/II From Evaluation Methodology document #1359: –Aggregate area throughput [bps/m2] for specified scenarios - this metric directly relates to the average throughput per BSS and can be used to compare different deployment densities and heterogeneous deployments. –Average per-STA throughput in all participating BSS –5% point in the throughput CDF curve – this metric measures cell edge performance More information may be provided such as the entire CDF curve and MCS histogram [3] –Time constraint throughput for delay sensitive applications –Higher layer QoS metrics [4] are TBD Summary: metrics from EM Doc. are still under discussion, but they seem to cover WFA suggestions, except for ‘outage’ –5% point of the CDF can be a measure of outage –is it relevant for HEW to have a different definition of outage? Nov 2013 Slide 11Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Suggestions related to overall goals WFA Proposal 4: Evaluation scenarios are designed to highlight the following aspects, which are considered important to improving performance of operator networks: OBSS between networks in multiple management entities (inc. hidden node problem) –outdoor performance (inc. larger delay spreads, and probability of high MCS / MIMO order transmission) –impact of management traffic (inc. from “idle STAs”) – probe request/response, RRM signaling –spectrally efficient coexistence with legacy devices –efficient use of the complete 2.4/5 GHz spectrum (inc. tradeoff between channel bandwidth and OBSS contention) Simulation scenarios descriptions currently target above elements –Scenarios 4 is outdoor –Management traffic is included –Legacy devices are included optionally –2.4 and 5GHz bands are assumed Nov 2013 Slide 12Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Overall summary High priority Usage Models are covered by Simulation Scenarios, except for 2b Public Transportation –Scenario 2b is essentially ‘single cell’ –Does the SG think this is a relevant use case to model? –If yes, we may have to add a scenario, or adjust an existing one P2P applications are considered in each scenario, traffic models should capture WFA suggestions Traffic model proposals in various scenarios should consider WFA feedback Metrics from EM Doc are still TBD but seem in line with feedback –Does the SG think the ‘outage’ metric needs some special treatment? Simulation Scenarios already include elements that capture the suggested overall goals (outdoor, management overhead, legacy devices, operating bands) Nov 2013 Slide 13Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission References 11-13/1000r2 Simulation Scenarios, Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) 11-13/1001r5 Simulation Scenarios Document Template, Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) 11-13/1359 HEW-Evaluation-Methodology, Ron Porat (Broadcomm) 11-13/1443 Liaison from Wi-Fi Alliance on HEW Use Cases, Adrian Stephens 11-13/657 HEW SG usage models and requirements - Liaison with WFA, Laurent Cariou (Orange) Nov 2013 Slide 14Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission APPENDIX Nov 2013 Slide 15Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov b Airports and Train Stations - public access and cellular offload The Next Generation Wi-Fi is expected to provide very high capacity for the people using bandwidth consuming applications in a dense deployed environments. streaming video Talking over video phone VPN access to the office Airports and train stations are typical places where many service providers install their APs and many passengers use WLAN services. Slide 16Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov b Airport/train stations - public access and cellular offload Pre-Conditions High density users access internet through multiple operators’ WLAN network. The venue owner possibly manages or controls multiple operators’ WLAN networks uniformly for the purpose of users’ QoS. Environment The environment is very complex and may suffer severe interference. Each AP serves 120 devices in a 200m 2 area. The inter- AP distance is in the range of 15~20m. Single/multiple operators. Applications Video based applications: TV, VOD, Video conference; VHD highly compressed (100 Mbps): 50% of users VPN applications (20 Mbps): 10% of users Game online; 100 Mbps, < 100 ms jitter; < 100 ms latency: 10% of users Internet access: , twitter, web surf, IM. (20 Mbps): 30% of users Traffic Conditions Interference between APs belonging to the same managed ESS due to very high density deployment. Interference between APs belonging to different managed ESS due to the presence of multiple operators. Interference with unmanaged networks (P2P) Interference with cellular (e.g. TD-LTE) in in-device coexistence scenario (e.g. User equipments running Wi- Fi and TD-LTE at the same time.) Use Case Travelers are using the network to surf websites, watch movies, play online games and access cloud services. Slide 17Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov e e-Education Scenario Characteristics: –Dense STAs (40~60 STAs) in one classroom with one AP –20~30 classrooms in one typical school building (3~6 floors) –Thus, nearby 1,000 STAs with 20~30 APs within a building space. Typical education applications: –Video streaming among teacher and students; –Teachers/Students demonstrate theirs desktop to others; –File transfer and sharing; –4+ subgroup in one classroom with multicasting traffic for screen sharing or video; Throughput assumption: longtime/stable throughput in one classroom >= 20 Mbps Challenges and Issues: –Fast Connection: Very long STAs registering time (1~5 minutes) delay the start of a class; –Interference Control and Delay Optimization: Annoying lag in screen sharing, video streaming and command response (sometimes it is longer than 20 seconds) Very low bandwidth for e-homework submission in the same period. Slide 18Laurent Cariou (Orange)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov e e-Education Pre-Conditions WLAN is deployed in a each classroom of a campus in order to provide communication tools for e-Education. Environment Dense STAs (40~60 STAs) in one classroom with one AP. 20~30 classrooms in one typical school building (3~6 floors). Nearby 1,000 STAs with 20~30 APs within a building space. Applications Video streaming among teacher and students; Teachers/Students demonstrate theirs desktop to others; File transfer and sharing; 4+ subgroup in one classroom with multicasting traffic for screen sharing or video; Throughput assumption: longtime/stable throughput in one classroom >= 20 Mbps Traffic Conditions Interference between APs in different classrooms belonging to the same managed ESS due to high density deployment. interference with peer-to-peer networks within each classroom. Use Case e-Education starts in multiple classrooms simultaneously. Teacher/students demonstrated their desktop to others, video or screens are shared. Slide 19Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov 2013 Slide 20 2b Public Transportation - public access and cellular offload Pre-Conditions: High density users have operational WLAN network for Internet access during very crowded time such as commuting time. User can access the onboard entertainment system (internal) and Internet (external). Environment: Indoor open area with many obstacles most of which are human body blockings. Each cabin has separate WLAN connectivity for subway cabin. For bus, there is a single cabin. People can be slowly moving in the cabin. Application: Onboard entertainment: Broadcast and local VoD services, Internet Access, Gaming, public safety: Local VoD services, monitoring: 50 x 20 Mbps = 1.0 G 25 users listening to HD audio 25 users doing interactive gaming ; 25 x 20 Mbps = 0.5 Gbps, <100 ms jitter and <100 ms latency Traffic Conditions interference with unmanaged networks such as tethering (personal Soft-AP such as mobile router) Potential interference from traffic in the surrounding outdoor environment for public transports in cities. Use Case 100 passengers in one cabin (10 m x 3m). Passengers access via WLAN the onboard the entertainment system for video display, audio, and interactive gaming activities. Passengers also access the Internet via the WLAN. Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov a Dense apartment building – private access and cellular offload Pre-Conditions Each apartment has Wi-Fi network deployed to access internet and cloud services. In each apartment up to 3 users stream concurrently video content from the network and up to 50% of the networks are active. At the same time each of the active Wi-Fi networks is used by 2 users for web browsing Environment Building with 100 apartments. One AP in each apartment of 10mx10m randomly positioned. 5 STA per AP randomly positioned in the apartment. Applications Cloud based applications supporting video streaming with 8k resolution. Video throughput assumptions are: ~112Mbps per STA, delay is < 200ms, 1.0E-3 PER. Online game Cloud-based application as big storage Web browsing assumptions for Social Networking are: ~20Mbps, PER 1e-3, delay<50ms 150 active video users and 100 active web browsing users in the building. Traffic Conditions Strong interference from unmanaged overlapping networks (neighboring apartments, and outdoor Wi-Fi network). Multiple video display are operational simultaneously. Interference with Zigbee, Bluetooth. Use Case Users watch the high quality video contents coming from the Internet or video contents stored in their PVR with VHD Display. There may be another video streams to be recorded in the Blu-ray deck. People enjoy playing online games or local game machine with two or more people. Other users are just accessing the Internet for access, web browsing, etc. Slide 21Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission Nov b Pico-cell street deployment - public access and cellular offload Pre-Conditions Street deployment for cellular offload purpose (potentially co-location with cellular network small cells) or for city neighborhood blanket coverage. Environment Most outdoor street deployments will be made with placement below rooftop (3 - 10m: typical location of cellular network pico cells): lamp poles, hanged on cables, stuck to walls. It will be mostly side coverage (omni or directional). Inter-AP distance between 150 and 200 meters for blanket coverage. Shorter distance in higher density zones. Applications User traffic mix is similar to cellular traffic mix. Mix of VOIP, Best effort FTP, Internet access, Web video, teleconferencing. Throughput assumption: longtime/stable throughput per user >= 20 Mbps Real-time Video Analytics & Augmented Reality User Generated Content (UGC) Upload & Sharing with a higher proportion in public event zones. Traffic Conditions Interference between APs belonging to the same managed ESS due to very high density deployment. Interference between APs belonging to different managed ESS due to the presence of multiple operators. Interference with stand-alone private APs from surrounding buildings. (at 2.4GHz, between 15 to 20 APs in all 3 channels (beacons already occupy 20% of channel) Interference with unmanaged networks (P2P and private mobile APs such as mobile routers and tethering smartphones) Interference with 2G-3G-LTE, especially in case of co- site deployments, and in-device coexistence scenario. Use Case Users connect to hotspot, perform a mixture of applications, including VOIP calls, FTP, Internet access, video conference. Some users are in mobility (walking down the street). Slide 22Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)

doc.: IEEE /1456r0 Submission sd Nov 2013 Slide 23 Usage Model AP densitySTA densityManagementPropagationHomogeneity Traffic [tentative] Mapping 1 high density of APs and high density of STAs per AP aStadium 12-20m~50/APManagedOutdoor/IndoorFlatMobileOutdoor/Indoor Hotspot bairport/train stations 15-20m<120/APManagedOutdoor?FlatMobileOutdoor Hotspot cexhibition hall 5-10m100/APManagedIndoorFlatMobile/Ente rprise Enterprise or Indoor Hotspot dshopping malls ~High ManagedIndoorFlatMobileIndoor Hotspot eE-Education ~1/class?~40-60/APManagedIndoorFlatEnterprise f Multi-media Mesh backhaul m?1-10/APManagedIndoor/Outdoor ? ?Enterprise? 2 high density of STAs – Indoor adense wireless office <50m20-30/APManagedIndoorFlatEnterprise bpublic transportation ?HighManagedIndoorFlatMobile? clecture hall < 200mHighManagedIndoorFlatEnterprise? d Manufacturing Floor Automation 50m250/APManagedIndoorFlat?Enterprise? 3 high density of APs (low/medium density of STAs per AP) – Indoor adense apartment building 10m5/APUnmanagedIndoorFlatHomeResidential bCommunity Wi-Fi (20/channel ) LowUnmanagedIndoor/outdoorFlatHome + Mobile Outdoor Large BSS+ Residential 4 high density of APs and high density of STAs per AP – Outdoor aSuper dense urban Street 10-20m /APManagedOutdoorFlatMobileOutdoor Hotspot bPico-cell street deployment mHighManagedOutdoorFlatMobileOutdoor Large BSS c Macro-cell street deployment (High) ManagedOutdoor/IndoorHierarchicalOutdoor Large BSS + Outdoor Hotspots 5 Throughput- demanding applications a surgery/health care (similar to 2e from 11ac) lowLowManagedIndoorFlat? b production in stadium (similar to 1d-1e from 11ac) Low3/APManagedOutdoorFlat? csmart car 1 AP?5/APManagedIndoor ?Flat? Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) Slide 23 From Doc #1000