1 / 9

IEEE 802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status Update

This update provides the status of the evaluation criteria and traffic models for IEEE 802.20. It includes details of conference calls, open issues, and updates to the evaluation criteria document. Contributions are invited on various topics such as VoIP traffic model, wireless multi-party gaming traffic models, and video streaming model.

mball
Télécharger la présentation

IEEE 802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status Update

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. 802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status UpdateUpdated per Conference call Dec. 7, 2004By Anna Tee Farooq Khan IEEE 802.20 Plenary Meeting San Antonio, Texas, USA November 15-19, 2004 All changes show in Green.

  2. Evaluation Criteria Status* • Four conference calls since September Interim: • September 28, 2004: Phased Approach • October 12, 2004: Evaluation Criteria Document Review • October 26, 2004: Document Review + Channel Models • November 9, 2004: Document Review + Simulation Calibration • Major open issues: • VoIP (and wireless multi-party Gaming [04/86]) Traffic model • System simulation calibration [04/83r1] • Channel [04/82r1] and Traffic mix • Details of Phase 2 simulations [04/85r1] • Updated 802.20 Evaluation Criteria Version 12 now available: • Included Phased Approach Table • Updates based on the document review over the conference calls • Number of occurrences of the word “TBD” in the document: 22 (18 of them located in Phased (2) approach Table) *Reference to related IEEE 802.20 contributions included in [.]

  3. Traffic Models • Specification of traffic mix • Phase 1 use full buffers model • Traffic mix scenarios need to be defined for Phase 2 of the simulations • VoIP Traffic Model • Need to finalize on VoIP source traffic model • Contributions invited on Wireless multi-party Gaming traffic models [04/86] • Video Streaming Model • Need to determine if video streaming data rate need to be different than 32Kb/s currently assumed. [04/88]

  4. Phase 2 Simulations Details [04/85r1] • The details of phase 1 are currently being discussed in the evaluation criteria: • Agreed to use 19-cells 3-sector wrap-around configuration, Full buffers (hungry) traffic, simulation calibration, link-system interface etc. • Current Recommendation is to use suburban macro, 3 Km/h pedestrian B and 120Km/h Vehicular B channel models. • The issues that need further consideration: • Full-duplex simulation, traffic mix, channel mix, control signaling and handoff modeling etc.

  5. Link Budget Criteria • Consensus on most of the link budget parameters • Open issue: Should maximum range (link budget) or equivalently maximum pathloss be used as a performance metric for proposal comparison or not? [04/64r4] • Clarification text on the section for link budget required so that technology proponents will know how to provide the data requested (How the data will be used will be covered in the Technology Selection Process document.) • Performance metrics specified in section 13 can refer to the link budget template

  6. Application specific criteria In the evaluation of spectral efficiency and in order to make a fair comparison of different proposals, it is important that all mobile users be provided with a minimal level of throughput. The fairness for best effort traffic (HTTP, FTP and full buffers) is evaluated by determining the normalized cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the user throughput, which meets a predetermined function. For applications other than best effort, application specific outage criteria are defined. The proposals will also provide additional fairness metrics. The details of the additional fairness metrics are TBD (see for example IEEE C802.20-04/05). • A fairness criteria is defined for the best effort data traffic: • application specific outage and QoS (FER, delay etc.) criteria need to be defined for other applications! • Contributions are also invited on additional fairness metrics • For other applications such as VoIP, gaming or video streaming, what would be the criteria in each case to ensure the spectral efficiency is computed based on system resources being shared fairly amongst the simulated users in the same sector? • Contributions are required if additional metrics are to be adopted

  7. System simulation calibration [04/83r1] • The evaluation criteria would specify a system simulation calibration process. • Calibration would be done as part of phase 1 of simulations • However, it is not clear, at this stage, to what level of detail simulations need to be calibrated. • The group discussed a contribution on this issue over the November 9, 2004 conference call: • Further discussions planned during the Plenary meeting

  8. Channel Models Mix [04/82r1] • Decided to address the Channel models mix issue in evaluation criteria. • Need to decide if Channel Models mix is necessary for evaluation • If it is necessary, what would be the appropriate channel models mix? • Further discussions planned based on an open contribution discussed over the November 8, 2004 channel models CG call.

More Related