1. CX-CBP in 3.65GHz – Simulation results for Scenario C
March 2009
CX-CBP in 3.65GHz – Simulation results for Scenario C
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE
Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures < ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the TAG of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE TAG. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at
Alvarion

2. 802.16h CX-CBP – Frame structure
March 2009
802.16h CX-CBP – Frame structure
CX-Frame structure is shown below:
Alvarion

3. CX-CBP General features
March 2009
CX-CBP General features
Equal operational time assigned to each technology
10ms for each CXCBI and CXCSBI
Operation during CXCBI
Scheduled transmit opportunities
Listen-before-talk
Contention window and quiet periods
Longer slots are defined for h as compared with y
Priority is given to y
Logarithmic back-off
Alvarion

4. Synchronization CX-Frame is synchronized with GPS-like time source
March 2009
Synchronization
CX-Frame is synchronized with GPS-like time source
802.16h-based systems are using CXSBI in a synchronized mode
Sync of y with CXCBI is not mandated
Two operational modes
Sync. CX-CBP
The AP limits the y operation to CXCBI
See Annex in “Parameters for simulation of Wireless Coexistence in the US 3.65GHz band” document
Un-sync. CX-CBP
No limitation is imposed
Alvarion

5. March 2009
Parameters
Based on: IEEE /11r16, Parameters for simulation of Wireless Coexistence in the US 3.65GHz band
Scenario A “Outdoor-to-outdoor”
Scenario C “Outdoor-to-indoor”
Offered load for each system:
In order to find the maximal capacity for each system, simulations were performed in no-interference state, and overloading each system.
The maximum throughputs derived were (for 5 MHz channel):
Scenario A
DL: 7.2 Mbps
UL: 4 Mbps
overall: 8 Mbps
Scenario C
DL: 2.4 Mbps
UL: 2.2 Mbps
overall: 3.1 Mbps
Alvarion

6. March 2009
Parameters (cont.)
The offered load in the interference simulation for each system was based on these relations between the maximum achievable loads, modified according to the required total load
For scenario C, the mandatory load of 9.6 Mbps is more than 100% of the achievable load (7.7 Mbps)
Alvarion

7. Legend Abbreviations NCX: No Coexistence Protocol
March 2009
Legend Abbreviations
NCX: No Coexistence Protocol
Reference for y / h operation
SCX: Sync CX-CBP. Synchronized Coordinated Contention-Based Protocol
UCX: Unsync CX-CBP. Unsynchronized Coordinated Contention-Based Protocol
NI: No Interference
Reference for max. performance
NL: Only control elements are transmitted by the interfering system
802.16h CX-CBP: according to defined operation
Alvarion

8. Cell sizes (Scenario A)
March 2009
Cell sizes (Scenario A)
Cell size for each system was chosen to be the minimum between its DL and UL ranges.
Alvarion

9. Cell sizes (Scenario C)
March 2009
Cell sizes (Scenario C)
Cell size for each system was chosen to be the minimum between its DL and UL ranges.
Alvarion

10. Simulation #1 Scenario C (outdoor to indoor) 10 users per system
March 2009
Simulation #1
Scenario C (outdoor to indoor)
10 users per system
Total offered load for both systems: 4.8 Mbps
offered load of 2.9 Mbps
150 Kbps DL per user
137 Kbps UL per user
offered load of 1.9 Mbps
129 Kbps DL per user
64 Kbps UL per user
5 MHz bandwidth
Unlimited retransmissions in and
Alvarion

11. Hidden Node Probabilities (Mean)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (Mean)
Alvarion

12. Hidden Node Probabilities (10th percentile)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (10th percentile)
Alvarion

13. Hidden Node Probabilities (Median)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (Median)
Alvarion

14. Hidden Node Probabilities (90th percentile)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (90th percentile)
Alvarion

15. March 2009
Mean Throughputs
Alvarion

16. 10th Percentile Throughputs
March 2009
10th Percentile Throughputs
Alvarion

17. March 2009
Median Throughputs
Alvarion

18. March 2009
Mean Latency
Alvarion

19. March 2009
Median Latency
Alvarion

20. March 2009
90th Percentile Latency
Alvarion

21. Simulation #2 Scenario C (outdoor to indoor) 10 users per system
March 2009
Simulation #2
Scenario C (outdoor to indoor)
10 users per system
Total offered load for both systems: 2.4 Mbps
offered load of 1.4 Mbps
75 Kbps DL per user
68 Kbps UL per user
offered load of 1 Mbps
64 Kbps DL per user
32 Kbps UL per user
5 MHz bandwidth
Unlimited retransmissions in and
Alvarion

22. Hidden Node Probabilities (Mean)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (Mean)
Alvarion

23. Hidden Node Probabilities (10th percentile)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (10th percentile)
Alvarion

24. Hidden Node Probabilities (Median)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (Median)
Alvarion

25. Hidden Node Probabilities (90th percentile)
March 2009
Hidden Node Probabilities (90th percentile)
Alvarion

26. March 2009
Mean Throughputs
Alvarion

27. 10th Percentile Throughputs
March 2009
10th Percentile Throughputs
Alvarion

28. March 2009
Median Throughputs
Alvarion

29. March 2009
Mean Latency
Alvarion

30. March 2009
Median Latency
Alvarion

31. March 2009
90th Percentile Latency
Alvarion

32. March 2009
Conclusions
Hidden Node statistics is improved by SCX for y DL and h UL, as compared with NCX
Both SCX and UCX improve the y DL and h UL throughput, as compared with NCX
Both SCX and UCX improve the h UL latency, , as compared with NCX
Alvarion