1 / 15

WP6: Proof of Concept

WP6: Proof of Concept. Project review C-MOBILE ADVANCED MBMS FOR THE FUTURE MOBILE WORLD. Stefan WENDT France Telecom March 28 t h 2007, Brussels, Belgium. Agenda. WP6 objectives as defined by TA Challenges of WP6 WP6 time schedule Current state of project work Future work in WP6.

lionel-trujillo
Télécharger la présentation

WP6: Proof of Concept

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP6: Proof of Concept Project review C-MOBILE ADVANCED MBMS FOR THE FUTURE MOBILE WORLD Stefan WENDT France Telecom March 28th 2007, Brussels, Belgium Project Review

  2. Agenda • WP6 objectives as defined by TA • Challenges of WP6 • WP6 time schedule • Current state of project work • Future work in WP6 Project Review

  3. A6.1 – Scenario Specifications • Activity run: March 2007 (advanced to October 2006) – June 2007 • Objective: • Provide detailed service scenarios to be implemented (A6.2) and to be simulated (A6.3) • Provide criteria for evaluation of final results • Interaction with A6.2: modification if scenario too complex to implement (during May and June 2007) • Output: • Detailed service scenarios for A6.2 and A6.3 • D6.1 "Scenarios and selected experimentation / simulation environment" in M16 (June 2007). Project Review

  4. A6.2 – Implementation of Concept • Activity run: May 2007 – February 2008 • Objective: • Set up experimentation / simulation / emulation. • Simulators/emulators (or testbed) • Some analysis require implementation of link and system level simulators. • Output: • Implementation of selected experimentation/simulation. • D6.2 "Performance Analysis Results for MBMS Enhancements" in M24 (February 2008) with A6.3. Project Review

  5. A6.3 – Execution and Evaluation • Activity run: August 2007 – February 2008 • Objective: • Provide experimentation results + analysis. • Verification of actual algorithm performance vs. theoretical performance. • Stability and influence of different network conditions on the actual algorithm performance. • Tuning and optimization of algorithm parameters. • Evaluation of results against criteria defined in specification of A6.1 • Output: • Provide experimentation results and their analysis. • D6.2 "Performance Analysis Results for MBMS Enhancements" in M124 (February 2008) with A6.2. • Input: • Evaluation criteria of A6.1 and work of A6.2. Project Review

  6. Challenges • Demonstrator covers all aspects, all work of the WPs (CP, CN, RAN) • No extra budget for expensive hardware • Simulation / emulation of certain parts necessary • Interfaces between CP, CN and RAN • Bring together work of all WPs • A6.1 specifies the architecture: TA foresees only 2 months. Much preparation necessary, many exchanges between WPs. Advance start of A6.1. Project Review

  7. August 2007 March 2007 May 2007 WP6 Schedule Interaction A6.1 – A6.2 Permanent Interactions with WPs A6.1 M6.2 M6.3 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 M6.4 M6.1 D6.1 Scenarios and selected exp./sim environment D6.2 Performance Analysis Results For MBMS Enhancements Scenario Specification Implementation Execution Evaluation Project Review

  8. A6.1 – Time Schedule • October 2006 – December 2006: • Brainstorming about demonstrator ideas. • Results put in an internal document "Proof of concept realization", serving as basis. • Discussions and exchange between the WPs. • January 2007 – March 2007: • Discussions and exchange between the WPs. • Defining contribution of each partner. • Concrete proposition for the demonstrator architecture. • Maintaining up to date internal document "Proof of concept realization". • Draft version of D6.1 based on internal document "Proof of concept realization". • April 2007 – June 2007: • Decision what to implement. • Start implementation - interaction A6.1 -A6.2. • Finalizing D6.1. • Define evaluation criteria for final results. • June 2007: • D6.1 final version ready with QCC comments. • D6.1 send to EC end of June 2006. Project Review

  9. A6.2 – Time Schedule • April 2007 - May 2007: • Set up an implementation plan & time line. • Start implementation - interaction A6.1 -A6.2. • June 2007: • Provide internal document with implementation plan & time line • August 2007: • M6.2 Overall MBMS experimentation/simulation implementation specified in M18 (August 2007). • M6.2 MBMS experimentation/simulation tool stable enough in M18 (August 2007) to start A6.3 Project Review

  10. A6.3 – Time Schedule • August 2007: • Set up a simulation plan & time line. • September 2007: • Finish implementation activities. • Provide internal document with exact simulation plan & time line. • October 2007: • Having working the final version of the simulator. • Being ready to start simulation work in November. • November 2007 – February 2008: • Work on simulations. • Evaluation of results. • Preparing D6.2. • December 2007: • Providing of ToC for D6.2. • February: • Finalizing of D6.2 + QCC comments • Send D6.2 to EC. Project Review

  11. Current state • Thanks to advanced start A6.1 is right in time. • An internal document serves as a follow up. • Initial ideas found via brainstorming gave the basis. • Discussions, work and exchange between WPs provided more content. • Concrete architecture proposals are available. • The use of several protocols and hardware is currently on study. • New internal document "IT platforms and evaluation". Project Review

  12. Content Server RAN Emulator B.1 B.2 Core Network Client Architecture proposal Project Review

  13. B.2 B.1 Architecture proposal RAN Emulator • RAN modeled as black box. One interface is connected to the CN by ethernet the other is a Wifi interface serving the User Equipment.B.1B.2 • Delay, Jitter, packet losses,…are added • Other RAN behaviours are emulated as impact on the IP traffic. Project Review

  14. Architecture proposal CN part • The important part of the demonstrator. • Main work. Project Review

  15. Future work • The architecture will be finalized until May 2007. • Implementation can perhaps start one month earlier. • Execution and evaluation will start as foreseen in August 2007 Project Review

More Related