1. <July 2011>
Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [LECIM Coexistence Considerations]
Date Submitted: [19 July, 2011]
Source: [David A. Howard] Company [On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.]
Address [10920 Via Frontera, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92127, USA]
Voice:[+1(858) ], FAX: [+1(858) ],
Re: []
Abstract: [Discussion on coexistence considerations with respect to the LECIM.]
Purpose: [Discussion within the task group TG4k.]
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
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>

2. Definition of Coexist:
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Definition of Coexist:
Coexist:
Successfully operate in proximity to other wireless devices
Views of coexistence:
Tolerance of other systems in my space
Impacts on other systems in my space
Mechanism may be different for infrastructure and endpoints
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

3. Infrastructure (Coordinator)
<July 2011>
Infrastructure (Coordinator)
Minimize interference to others
professional installation
site survey/channel scan
co channel
energy detect
adjacent channels
Minimize interference from others
adjacent channel rejection/selectivity
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>

4. End point (node) Minimize interference to others
<July 2011>
End point (node)
Minimize interference to others
co channel
energy detect
weighted Listen Before Talk
adjacent channel
duty cycle
power control
Minimize interference from others
adjacent channels
adjacent channel rejection/selectivity
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>

5. Passive (static) Co-existence
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Passive (static) Co-existence
Characteristics of signals and environment
Dedicated spectrum (licensed bands)
Random channel access
Channel alignment
Low duty cycle (temporal diversity)
Frequency diversity
‘Noise-like’ signal modulation
Coding characteristics
FEC
etc…
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

6. Active (dynamic) Coexistence
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Active (dynamic) Coexistence
Active Interference Avoidance and Mitigation
CCA
Dynamic channel selection
Sense and avoid
Adaptation
Transmit power control
Fragmentation
Channel masking (black-listing/white-listing)
etc.
Network separation capability
Coding, timing, …
Energy Detect, Scanning, etc.
Cognitive Radio
And so on….
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Services to Consider
Anything which might intentionally share the band(s)
Other IEEE 802.x in same bands
Widely deployed non-IEEE standards or non-standard but known
Anything which may unintentionally impact the band(s)
Broad spectrum unintentional radiators
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Services to Consider
Example bands:
800/900 MHz
Proprietary systems
2.4GHz
(1,3,4), ,
Proprietary radios
Microwave ovens
Plasma lights
And so on…
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

9. Mitigation: Existing Services
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Mitigation: Existing Services
Existing (800/900 MHz or 2.4GHz)
Existing MAC features are available:
Channel scan, ED, etc.
CCA / CSMA Methods
Low duty cycles
Enhanced MAC features
Channel hopping
Can have coordinated coexistence
Proprietary systems
Existing energy detect
Adaptive channel hopping
Can’t coordinate, may avoid
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

10. Mitigation: Existing Services
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Mitigation: Existing Services
(Bluetooth)
Adaptive Frequency Hopping
Typically very low power
Need some “respect” (leave a little spectrum)
802.11
Lots of devices in 2.4GHz
Can coordinate amongst other devices
Has reasonable immunity to narrow band interferers (wide relative bandwidth)
Other sources
Microwave ovens
Plasma lights
Pet collars
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

11. doc.: IEEE 802.15-<doc#>
<month year>
doc.: IEEE <doc#>
<July 2011>
Coexistence Analysis
Established Methodology
established methodology
Ongoing refinement
Simulation
Potential impacts and footprints
Measurement
Actual data is always best
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>
<author>, <company>

12. Summary Co-existence is important now
<July 2011>
Summary
Co-existence is important now
Co-existence isn’t likely to become less critical in the future
We need to consider coexistence measures in PHY proposals for k LECIM
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>

13. <July 2011>
Reference: 802 Coexistence
From LMSC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVISED
Page 41
21. Procedure for Coexistence Assurance
If indicated in the five criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a coexistence assurance (CA) document in the process of preparing for working group letter ballot and Sponsor ballot. The CA document shall accompany the draft on all wireless working group letter ballots.
The CA document shall address coexistence with all relevant approved 802 wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation. The working group should consider other specifications in their identified target band(s) in the CA document.
The TAG shall have one vote in working group letter ballots that include CA documents. As part of its ballot comments, the TAG will verify the CA methodology was applied appropriately and reported correctly.
The ballot group makes the determination on whether the coexistence necessary for the standard or amendment has been met.
A representative of the TAG should vote in all wireless Sponsor ballots that are in the scope of the coexistence TAG.
<David A. Howard>, <On-Ramp Wireless, Inc.>