1 / 9

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Band plans comparison] Date Submitted: [14 July, 2005] Source: [Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg] Company: [Wisair] Address: [24 Raoul Wallenberg st. Ramat Hachayal, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL]

moira
Télécharger la présentation

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

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. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Band plans comparison] Date Submitted: [14 July, 2005] Source: [Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg] Company: [Wisair] Address: [24 Raoul Wallenberg st. Ramat Hachayal, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL] Voice: [+972-3-7676605] FAX: [+972-3-6477608], E-Mail: [gadi.shor@wisair.com] Re: [802.15.4a] Abstract: [802.15.4a Band plans comparison] Purpose: [Support material for selecting a band plan for 802.15.4a] Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. 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 P802.15. Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  2. Purpose • The purpose of this document is to help the group in the selection of a band plan for 802.15.4a • The document compare the proposals mentioned in 15-05-0389 • The document contains a suggestion for a selection procedure Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  3. Grouping of proposals • There are 6 proposal on the table • The proposal can be separate into three major groups: • Constant PRF and Constant channel separation: Wisair, Wideband Access, I2R-A, I2R-B • Variable PRF and Constant channel separation: FS • Variable channel separation and constant PRF: NICT Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  4. Variable PRF and Constant channel separation (FS) • The idea behind this proposal is to allow greater bandwidth as the center frequency increase thus keeping a fixed ratio between the two. Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  5. Variable channel separation and constant PRF (NICT) • The idea behind this proposal (as far as I understand) is to select the center frequencies such that the margin to 3.1 and 4.9 is optimized without the restriction of keeping a fixed channel separation. Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  6. Constant PRF and Constant Channel separation • This group can be divided into two sub-groups • Wisair: Center frequencies are based on [13 15 17] x 264MHz, 264 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 11 • Wideband Access, I2R-A, I2R-B: Center frequencies are based on [7 8 9]*F0 • Wideband Access: F0 = 494 = 2 x 3 x 19 • I2R-A: F0 = 496 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 31 • I2R-B: F0 = 1.2 x 1.6 x 2 x 2 x 5 x 13 Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  7. Suggestion for selection procedure (1) • Proposals from Wideband access , I2R-A, I2R-B : The three proposals are based on the same concept but from implementation point of view and matching with the criteria it seems like proposal I2R-A is the best candidate between the three: • Support 13, 19.2, 24 with high PLL Fref • Allow simple generation of the 1 MHz for the interface • It would be best if the proposes can agree to unify those proposal into a single proposal to simplify the selection procedure Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  8. Suggestion for selection procedure (2) • FS vs. NICT vs. (Constant PRF and Channel separation) • FS follows UWBforum frequencies • NICT allows good margin for 4.9 GHz • The group will have to decide if we want to have constant channel separation and constant PRF or we are willing to give one of those features • Wisair vs. (Wideband Access, I2R-A, I2R-B) • The main differences are: Margin to 3.1 and 4.9, coexistence with WiMedia and SOP. The group will have to decide which criteria is more important. Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

  9. Benefits of constant channel separation and constant PRF • The use of constant channel separation allow one more type of implementation which is based on generating the frequencies using SSB mixers instead of direct generation of the center frequencies from the VCO. • The use of constant PRF allows a simple definition of the standard but is not a mandatory thing. Gadi Shor, Sorin Goldenberg (Wisair)

More Related