doc.: IEEE wng0 12-May-2008 FlammerSubmission: MAC Requirements for Smart Grid Slide 1 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Fitting Smart Grid Applications and 802 Wireless Ecosystem] Date Submitted: [12 May, 2008] Source: [Benjamin A. Rolfe] Company [Independent Consultant] [Jay Ramasastry] Company [Silver Springs Networks] [George Flammer]Company [Silver Springs Networks] Address [] Voice:[ ] Re: [] Abstract:Review of what leads SSN to Purpose:Contribution to Neighborhood Area Networks Interest Group (IG-NAN) Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 2 Benjamin Rolfe Independent Consultant Jay Ramasastry George Flammer Silver Springs Networks Smart Grid and the 802 Wireless Ecosystem May 12, 2008 IEEE Interest Group: Neighborhood Area Networks 05-May-2008doc.: IEEE wng0 Prepared By:

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 3 Why For Neighborhood Area Networks? 05-May-2008doc.: IEEE wng0

Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 4 »General Requirements Summary »802 Wireless Ecosystem »Reviewed:  3G/4G      Outline Prefer :

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 5 Utility Network – General Requirements Wide Area Process Control »Low Data Volume  5-10 transactions per day per device  Low data rate, low duty cycle »Latency tolerance  Needs to be consistent/deterministic »Ubiquity  Every customer connected  Multiple devices per customer »Robustness  Perform under extreme environments  Tolerant of device placement rather than optimally placed for network  Consistency of performance »Cost Constrained  Acquisition – infrastructure cost  Deployment  Consistency across regions  Long term Cost of Ownership »Scalable  Millions per utility  Billions per country »Needed Right Now!

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 6 Utility Networks Architecture Reference: wng0

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 7 Architectural Considerations »Mesh  Self forming and maintaining  Self-healing (pre-healing)  Multi-hop with large spans  Large number of end nodes »Peer to peer »Flexible topologies »Overlapping SOIs and SOPs »Heterogeneous network elements

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide Wireless Ecosystem

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 9 Standards Review

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 10 3G/4G »Licensed spectrum (cost, flexibility, risk) »Coverage »Dependence on service providers (and infrastructure)  Limited options per region  Inconsistent region to region – difficult to provide common solution everywhere  Inconsistent over time »Legacy requirements (voice, text, etc.) add complexity »Optimized for mass consumer network  Access not guaranteed »Reliability/Robustness can not be controlled »Part of the solution for backhaul

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide / WiMAX »Licensed spectrum »Architectural Complexity  Infrastructure based architecture »Designed for high data rate »Unlicensed WiMAX ?  No WiMAX profile (yet?) »Mobile  Licensed spectrum only (so far?) »Complimentary part of the solution  Backhaul

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide / WiFi »Optimized for high data rate and high duty cycle »Complex to Mesh »Crowded space  Provisioning complexity »Perceived security/privacy concerns  Perceived as an open network (hotspot)  Robustness concerns »Metro WiFi  Inconsistent coverage => inconsistent solution »Complimentary part of the solution  Backhaul

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide »Focus on Mobile Applications »Licensed spectrum (above 2Ghz)  Same concerns as above »Complex multiple radio system  Cost and availability »Infrastructure intensive  Deployment cost and complexity »Lack of deployed base/inertia  High risk  Unclear risk/reward

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide »Applicability unclear »Infrastructure based architecture  Point-to-point and point-to-multipoint »Lack of deployed base/inertia  Cost and availability uncertainty »Something to watch  Sub GHz, unlicensed ban

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide »15.1  Simple and Cheap, but…  Short range, low rate  optimized for low power  not ideally “meshable” »15.3c  Way more speed than needed  Very short range (60GHz)  Optimized for totally different application needs

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide »15.4  Unlicensed spectrum (incl. 900 MHz)  Low complexity  Suitable for Mesh (but can be made better)  Compatible data rates  Best fit of 802 standards …need appropriate enhancements  Application Symbionics Synergy with existing applications Same users implementing in both application spaces

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide is too slow… 15.3 is too fast… 15.4 is just right!

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide is too slow… 15.3 is too fast… 15.4 is just right! (well, closer…)

doc.: IEEE wng0 Submission: NAN 12-May-2008 Rolfe/Flammer/RamasastrySlide 19 Take Aways »15.4 closest to “home” »MAC may be closer than PHY ??  (work on this)