1. Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh
9/14/2019
doc.: IEEE /03xxr0
March 2004
Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh
Narasimha Chari
Malik Audeh
Tropos Networks
San Mateo, CA
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks
Realtek

2. Purpose Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort
March 2004
Purpose
Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort
We highlight the need for standardized interconnectivity
We compare and contrast the characteristics and functional requirements for a range of deployment scenarios
We present some observations about the state of mesh networking and on the feasibility of standardizing a routing protocol
We suggest a possible approach for the ESS Mesh Task Group to take
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

3. The need for standardized interconnectivity
March 2004
The need for standardized interconnectivity
Multiple vendors of mesh networking products already exist in the marketplace, serving different customer needs and providing solutions for different deployment environments
Specification of a standard way for mesh products from different vendors to interconnect is likely to fuel large-scale adoption of such systems
Interconnectivity across domain boundaries is likely to emerge as an important market requirement
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

4. Multiple deployment scenarios
9/14/2019
doc.: IEEE /03xxr0
March 2004
Multiple deployment scenarios
Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements
Directional vs omni-directional meshes
Indoor vs outdoor
Fixed vs mobile
Fixed wireless vs mobile access
Infrastructure vs peer-to-peer
Public safety vs ISP vs wireless carriers
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks
Realtek

5. Directional vs Omnidirectional
March 2004
Directional vs Omnidirectional
Directional or sectored
Relatively static connectivity
Clock synchronization may be necessary
Interference less likely
Longer-range links
Omnidirectional
Neighbor list is highly dynamic
Clock synchronization may not be required
Interference avoidance is an important requirement
Shorter-range links with multipath and fading
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

6. Indoor vs Outdoor Indoor Focus on higher data rates
9/14/2019
doc.: IEEE /03xxr0
March 2004
Indoor vs Outdoor
Indoor
Focus on higher data rates
Peer-to-peer applications
Symmetric power levels
Backhaul more widely distributed and available
Backhauls typically equivalent in capacity
Indoor propagation – walls, ceilings, desks
Outdoor
Lower data rates with higher rates used opportunistically
Client-server applications
Highly asymmetric links, power levels
Backhaul sparsely distributed, availability is challenging
Heterogeneous capacities on backhaul
Outdoor propagation – trees, trucks, buildings
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks
Realtek

7. Fixed/Infrastructure vs Mobile/Peer-to-Peer
9/14/2019
doc.: IEEE /03xxr0
March 2004
Fixed/Infrastructure vs Mobile/Peer-to-Peer
Fixed
Nodes are static
Optimum route choices favor stability
Client devices not part of the mesh
Application traffic flows are client-to-wired-server
Multiple backhaul sources present
Mobile
Nodes can be moving at high speeds
Optimal route choices favor quick adaptation
No distinction between clients and nodes
Application traffic flows are peer-to-peer
Backhaul may or may not be present
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks
Realtek

8. Mesh networking - a rapidly evolving area
March 2004
Mesh networking - a rapidly evolving area
Active area of research and development
Academic research – MIT RoofNet, CMU Monarch
Commercial innovation
Startups – Tropos, Mesh Networks, BelAir, Strix, Firetide, PacketHop, others
Established companies – Nortel, Intel, Motorola
Standards bodies (IETF MANET: AODV, DSR, DSDV, etc.)
Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

9. Challenges with standardizing a routing protocol
March 2004
Challenges with standardizing a routing protocol
Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements
No one-size-fits-all approach optimal across usage scenarios
Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed
Standardization of a single protocol may be premature and may stifle innovation in a rapidly evolving space
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

10. ESS Mesh – One Possibility
March 2004
ESS Mesh – One Possibility
Common-denominator routing protocol
There is utility in standardizing a base protocol that addresses those requirements that are common across a set of usage scenarios
Likely to be suboptimal for a given usage scenario
The standard should provide flexibility to use custom protocols (out of the scope of the standard) to address the specific requirements of given usage scenarios
Node-level interconnectivity
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

11. Next Steps Prioritize deployment scenarios or usage models
March 2004
Next Steps
Prioritize deployment scenarios or usage models
Develop functional requirements for a base set of usage scenarios
Architect the system to retain flexibility and extensibility to adopt custom protocols tailored for specific usage models
Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks