1. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 1 Attaining >75% Acceptance: A Potential Consensus Solution for IEEE 802.11g Bill Carney, Chris Heegard, Ph.D. & Sean Coffey, Ph.D. Texas Instruments Wireless Networking Business 141 Stony Circle, Suite 210 Santa Rosa California 95401 (707) 521-3060

2. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 2 Overview Context Potential Solution for IEEE 802.11g –CCK/OFDM with PBCC Potential IEEE 802.11g rates (Tx / Rx) Interoperability Implications Satisfying the PAR Conclusions

3. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 3 Context This is not a proposal; there is only one proposal remaining at this point: CCK/OFDM This IS a potential solution for consideration now by members to attain the 75% consensus necessary to satisfy the selection procedure and go to Letter Ballot for 802.11g, if the final called-for vote demonstrates the remaining proposal does not have such support among the members Standards invariably require technical compromise at some point; TGg is in need of compromise now

4. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 4 Potential Consensus Solution for IEEE 802.11g Both CCK/OFDM and PBCC transmitters are mandatory –Mandatory rates: CCK/OFDM - 6, 12, 24 Mbps PBCC - 5.5, 11, 22 Mbps Must implement one of either CCK/OFDM or PBCC receiver; or both –Systems with either receiver can interoperate With 11b networks via CCK Within and between each other via new high rate modes IEEE 802.11b backwards compatible –Short Preamble utilized This potential solution would satisfy all aspects of PAR

5. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 5 IEEE 802.11g Rates (Tx / Rx) Barker –1, 2 Mbps (mandatory / mandatory) CCK –5.5, 11 Mbps (mandatory / mandatory) CCK/OFDM –6, 12, 24 Mbps (mandatory / optional) –9, 18, 36, 48, 54 Mbps (optional / optional) PBCC –5.5, 11, 22 Mbps (mandatory / optional) –8.25, 16.5, 33 Mbps (optional / optional)

6. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 6 The Transmitting Station Always Sends What the Receiving Station Can Decode 802.11g system transmits to CCK-OFDM receiver using CCK-OFDM encoding 802.11g system transmits to PBCC receiver using PBCC encoding

7. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 7 Interoperability Potential IEEE 802.11g compliant devices under this solution can talk to IEEE 802.11b compliant devices via CCK and Barker Two high rate 802.11g compliant devices can always correspond at a new higher rate >20 Mbps At higher rates, under 802.11g compliance, the transmitting station always sends what the receiving station can decode

8. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 8 Implications CCK/OFDM proponents would have to build a PBCC transmitter to be IEEE 802.11g compliant –Straightforward to add PBCC (<5K gates) to a CCK transmitter –Not known if existing CCK/ODFM silicon would require re-spin PBCC proponents would have to build a CCK-OFDM transmitter to be IEEE 802.11g compliant –Design time/effort necessary to engineer the implementation –Re-spin required for existing PBCC-22 devices Allows all parties to focus on their unique value add –Transmitters are the less complicated part of a solution –Receiver implementation allows for individual innovation The industry can achieve consensus and move forward with clear development and deployment actions

9. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 9 What about the PAR? This potential consensus solution complies with all aspects of the TGg PAR The PAR requires the largest mandatory rate >20Mbps –All potential IEEE 802.11g devices can communicate above 20 Mbps Nothing specified about mandatory receiver requirements

10. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 10 Example Standards Many similar examples draw upon other standards where strong technical contention was evident V.34/v.90/(v.92) –3 trellis encoders required, 1 decoder required –Compromise struck because of different views of the complexity & performance trade-offs at the time ADSL –Reed-Solomon and Trellis encoder required, either decoder –Compromise allowing interleaved and fast datapath was struck because of IP uncertainty for interleaved method at the time HDSL-2 –Programmable binary convolutional encoder required –Compromise struck because multiple, valid encoding approaches were contending for inclusion or future consideration

11. doc.: IEEE 802.11-01/446r0 Submission July 2001 B.Carney, et. al. - Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 11 Conclusions This solution is biased towards no particular technology –Both CCK/OFDM and PBCC become part of the new standard –Equalizes market entry position w.r.t. the availability of IEEE 802.11g compliant products –Encourages competition; keeps market growing The purpose of an IEEE 802 standard is to write technical specifications that allow for superior networking solutions that interoperate and provide legacy support –Best of all new operational modes assured –Assures 802.11g devices are able to communicate effectively with growing base of 802.11b-compliant PBCC-5.5/11 Mbps products This potential consensus solution will provide the opportunity to allow the industry to move forward rapidly with a known direction