January 2005 doc IEEE 802 11 04888 r

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 TGn Sync Complete Proposal Date: 2005 -01 -15 Author Name Company Address Phone Email Syed Aon Mujtaba Agere Systems 555 Union Blvd. , Allentown, PA 18109, USA +1 610 712 6616 mujtaba@agere. com Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802. 11. 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802. 11. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http: // ieee 802. org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws. pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard. " Early disclosure to the Working Group of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <stuart. kerry@philips. com> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802. 11 Working Group. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee. org>. Submission 1 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Additional Authors: Name Company email Adrian P. Stephens Intel Corporation Adrian. p. stephens@intel. com Alek Purkovic Nortel Networks apurkovi@nortelnetworks. com Andrew Myles Cisco Systems amyles@cisco. com Andy Molisch Mitsubishi Electric Corp. molisch@merl. com Brian Hart Cisco Systems brianh@cisco. com Brian Johnson Nortel Networks brjohnso@nortelnetworks. com Chiu Ngo Samsung Electronics Co Ltd chiu. ngo@samsung. com Daisuke Takeda Toshiba Corporation daisuke. takeda@toshiba. co. jp Daqing Gu Mitsubishi Electric Corp. dgu@merl. com Darren Mc. Namara Toshiba Corporation Darren. Mc. Namara@toshiba-trel. com Dongjun (DJ) Lee Samsung Electronic Co Ltd djthekid. lee@samsung. com David Bagby Calypso Consulting david. bagby@ieee. org Eldad Perahia Cisco Systems eperahia@cisco. com Hiroshi Oguma Tohoku University oguma@wit. riec. tohoku. ac. jp Hiroyuki Nakase Tohoku University nakase@riec. tohoku. ac. jp Huanchun Ye Atheros Communications hcye@atheros. com Hui-Ling Lou Marvell Semiconductor hlou@marvell. com Isaac Lim Wei Lih Panasonic wllim@psl. com. sg James Chen Marvell Semiconductor jamesc@marvell. com J. Mike Wilson Intel Corporation james. mike. wilson@intel. com Submission 2 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Jari Jokela Nokia jari. jokela@nokia. com Jeff Gilbert Atheros Communications gilbertj@atheros. com Jin Zhang Mitsubishi Electric Corp. jzhang@merl. com Job Oostveen Royal Philips Electronics job. oostveen@philips. com Joe Pitarresi Intel Corporation joe. pitarresi@intel. com Jorg Habetha Royal Philips Electronics joerg. habetha@philips. com John Sadowsky Intel Corporation john. sadowsky@intel. com Jon Rosdahl Samsung Electronics Co Ltd jon. rosdahl@partner. samsung. com Kiyotaka Kobayashi Panasonic kobayashi. kiyotaka@jp. panasonic. com Li Yuan Institute for Infocomm Research liyuan@i 2 r. a-star. edu. sg Luke Qian Cisco Systems lchia@cisco. com Mary Cramer Agere Systems mecramer@agere. com Masahiro Takagi Toshiba Corporation masahiro 3. takagi@toshiba. co. jp Monisha Gosh Royal Philips Electronics monisha. ghosh@philips. com Nico van Waes Nokia nico. vanwaes@nokia. com Osama Aboul-Magd Nortel Networks osama@nortelnetworks. com Paul Feinberg Sony Electronics paul. feinberg@am. sony. com Pen Li Royal Philips Electronics pen. li@philips. com Peter Loc Marvell Semiconductor ploc@marvell. com Submission 3 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Ronald Rietman Royal Phiips Electronics ronald. rietman@philips. com Seigo Nakao Sanyo Electric Co Ltd snakao@gf. hm. rd. sanyo. co. jp Sheung Li Atheros Communications sheung@atheros. com Stephen Shellhammer Intel Corporation stephen. j. shellhammer@intel. com Sumei Sun Institute for Infocomm Research sunsm@i 2 r. a-star. edu. sg Taekon Kim Samsung Electronics Co Ltd taekon. kim@samsung. com Takashi Fukugawa Panasonic fukagawa. takashi@jp. panasonic. com Takushi Kunihiro Sony Corporation kuni@wcs. sony. co. jp Teik-Kheong (TK) Tan Royal Philips Electronics tktan@philips. com Tomoko Adachi Toshiba Corporation tomo. adachi@toshiba. co. jp Tomoya Yamaura Sony Corporation yamaura@wcs. sony. co. jp Tsuguhide Aoki Toshiba Corporation tsuguhide. aoki@toshiba. co. jp Victor Stolpman Nokia victor. stolpman@nokia. com Won-Joon Choi Atheros Communications wjchoi@atheros. com Xiaowen Wang Agere Systems xiaowenw@agere. com Yasuhiko Tanabe Toshiba Corporation yasuhiko. tanabe@toshiba. co. jp Yasuhiro Tanaka Sanyo Electric Co Ltd y_tanaka@gf. hm. rd. sanyo. co. jp Submission 4 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Yoshiharu Doi Sanyo Electric Co Ltd doi@gf. hm. rd. sanyo. co. jp Youngsoo Kim Samsung Electronic Co Ltd Kim. Youngsoo@samsung. com Yuichi Morioka Sony Corporation morioka@wcs. sony. co. jp Yukimasa Nagai Mitsubishi yuki-n@isl. melco. jp Submission 5 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Abstract Æ This document describes the TGn Sync complete proposal submission to IEEE 802. 11 TGn Submission 6 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 New TGn Sync Members Æ Infocomm Æ Mitsubishi Electric Corp. Æ Sharp Corp. Æ Tohoku University Æ Wavebreaker/ATcrc Æ Wavion Submission 7 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 TGn Sync Mission Statement Æ Develop a scalable architecture to support present and emerging applications Æ Foster a broad industry representation across market segments Submission 8 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Broad Industry Representation Æ OEM / System Vendors Asia Pacific / Europe / North America ■ ■ ■ Æ Semi Vendors ■ ■ ■ Æ ■ Infocomm Tohoku University PC Enterprise Consumer Electronics Public Access Handset Agere Atheros Intel Marvell Philips Semiconductor Academia ■ Submission Cisco Mitsubishi Electric Nokia Nortel Panasonic Samsung Sanyo Sharp Sony Toshiba Wavebreaker/ATrcc Wavion Academia 9 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Scalable Architecture across several dimensions Market Segments Residential Enterprise Public Access Portable Devices Regulatory Domains Submission Æ ■ Tx Beamforming MRMRA Coverage throughout the home ■ • Efficiency for isochronous ■ Tx beamforming clients (Vo. IP) Æ Reverse direction • Extended range for rates Hot Spot ■ Lower 802. 11 n ■ MRAD ■ Increased efficiency for gaming Range extension RX • assisted Link • ■ Power saving support for and robustness for handsets portable devices Adaptation 140 / 243 Mbps 315 Mbps 630 Mbps ■ • MRMRA ■ Reverse direction Higher throughput in congested • network Powerefficiency savings and • Higherenvironments for Asia Pacific bulk datarobustness transfer for handset Europe mobility North America 10 Performance Over Time Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 … And a well-defined Core Mandatory Features: ■ Two antennas ■ 20 / 40 MHz 140 / 243 Mbps Submission 11 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 PHY Summary of TGn Sync Proposal Æ Mandatory Features: ■ ■ ■ ■ Æ 1 or 2 Spatial Streams 20 MHz and 40 MHz* channelization 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, and 7/8 channel coding rates RX assisted Rate Control Optimized Interleaver for 20 & 40 MHz NEW 400 ns & 800 ns Guard Interval Full & seamless interoperability with a/b/g 140 Mbps in 20 MHz 243 Mbps in 40 MHz Optional Features: ■ ■ Transmit Beamforming Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Coding • Completed merger process with LDPC partial proposals NEW ■ support for 3 or 4 spatial streams *Not required in regulatory domains where prohibited. Submission 12 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Summary of TGn Sync Proposal Æ Mandatory ■ ■ ■ ■ MAC level aggregation ENHANCED RX assisted link adaptation Qo. S support (802. 11 e) MAC header compression Block ACK compression Legacy compatible protection 20/40 MHz channel management Æ Optional ■ ■ Submission Features: Bi-directional data flow MIMO RX Power management 13 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 PHY Submission 14 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 PHY Architectural Features Æ Mandatory features: ■ ■ ■ Spatial division multiplexing (SDM) of 2 Spatial Streams Interoperable 20 MHz and 40 MHz channelizations Channel Coding Rates: 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, and 7/8 Support for RX assisted Rate Control Guard Interval: 400 ns and 800 ns Max Mandatory rate in 20 MHz = 140 Mbps Max Mandatory rate in 40 MHz = 243 Mbps (with 2 x 2 architecture using 2 spatial streams) Æ Optional robustness & throughput enhancement: ■ ■ ■ Transmit beamforming Advanced coding (LDPC) SDM with 3 or 4 spatial streams with the option to scale to 630 Mbps Submission 15 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Modifications to PHY Arch after San Antonio Æ Optimized specification for interleaver for both 20 MHz and 40 MHz channelizations Æ Completed the merger process with LDPC partial proposals ■ Submission Detailed specification of LDPC encoding can be found in 889 r 2 (TGn Sync Technical Specification) 16 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Scalable PHY Architecture Mandatory Open Loop SDM Conv. Coding RX assisted Rate Control 2 Spatial Streams Regulatory Constraints Low Cost & Robust 20 MHz 40 MHz 140 Mbps 243 Mbps Submission Robustness Enhancement Throughput Enhancement Optional Closed Loop TX BF LDPC 4 Spatial Streams 630 Mbps 17 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Mapping Spatial Streams to Multiple Antennas Æ Number of spatial streams = Number of TX antennas ■ ■ ■ Æ Direct map 1 spatial stream to 1 antenna Spatial division multiplexing Equal rates on all spatial streams Number of spatial streams ≤ Number of TX antennas ■ ■ Each spatial stream mapped to all transmit antennas Optional transmit beamforming • Optimal technique for realizing array and diversity gains • Requires channel state info at the TX • Supports unequal rates on different spatial streams ■ Optional orthogonal spatial spreading • Exploits all transmit antennas • No channel state info at TX required ■ Submission Due to per spatial stream training, no change is needed at the RX to support optional techniques 18 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Parameters in Link Adaptation Basic MIMO Beamformed MIMO Stream Control No Yes Rate (MCS) Control Yes (per stream) GI selection Yes No Yes TX Per-Tone Steering Matrix Per Stream Power Loading Submission 19 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Mandatory PHY Features Submission 20 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 TX Arch: Spatial Division Multiplexing e. g. 2 Spatial streams with 2 TX antennas Preamble Pilots Spatial parser Puncturer Channel Encoder Scrambled MPDU Frequency Interleaver insert GI window symbols Constellation Mapper Preamble Pilots Frequency Interleaver Submission i. FFT Modulator Constellation Mapper 21 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Tone Design for 20 and 40 MHz 20 MHz: • • Identical to 802. 11 a 64 point FFT 48 data tones -26 4 pilot tones -21 -7 -1 +1 +7 +21 +26 Tone Fill in the Guard Band 40 MHz: • 128 point FFT • 108 data tones • 6 pilot tones -25 -53 -64 -58 -11 -32 -6 Legacy 20 MHz in Lower Sub-Channel Submission +11 -2 +2 +6 +25 +53 +32 +58 +63 Legacy 20 MHz in Upper Sub-Channel 22 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Scalable Basic MCS Set Modulation Code Rate Data Rates 20 MHz (Mbps) (1, 2, 3, 4 spatial streams) BPSK 1/2 6, 12, 18, 24 6‡, 13. 5, 27, 45. 5, 54 QPSK 1/2 12, 24, 36, 48 27, 54, 81, 108 QPSK 3/4 18, 36, 54, 72 40. 5, 81, 121. 5, 162 16 QAM 1/2 24, 48, 72, 96 54, 108, 162, 216 16 QAM 3/4 36, 72, 108, 144 81, 162, 243, 324 64 QAM 2/3 48, 96, 144, 192 108, 216, 324, 432 64 QAM 3/4 54, 108, 162, 216 121. 5, 243, 364. 5, 486 64 QAM 7/8 63, 126, 189, 252 141. 7, 283. 5, 425. 2, 567 64 QAM 7/8 with ½ GI 70, 140, 210, 280 157. 5, 315, 472. 5, 630 ‡ Duplicate format, BPSK R = ½ provides 6 Mbps for 40 MHz channels ½ GI applies to all data rates in 20 MHz Submission 23 Data Rates 40 MHz (Mbps) (1, 2, 3, 4 spatial streams) Mandatory MCS Optional MCS Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 HT-PPDU Format in 20 MHz HT LTF-2 20 MHz HT LTF-1 L-STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-DATA 20 MHz ANT_2 ANT_1 HT STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-DATA Legacy Compatible Preamble Legend LHTSTF LTF SIG Submission HT-specific Preamble Legacy Compatible Can be decoded by any legacy 802. 11 a or g compliant device for interoperability Legacy High Throughput Short Training Field Long Training Field Signal Field 24 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 40 MHz ANT_1 HT-PPDU Format in 40 MHz L-STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-DATA Duplicate Duplicate L-STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-SIG 40 MHz ANT_2 HT STF L-LTF L-SIG HT LTF-1 HT LTF-2 HT-SIG HT-DATA Duplicate Duplicate L-STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-SIG Legacy Compatible Preamble Submission HT-specific Preamble 25 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Spoofing Æ Spoofing is the use of the legacy RATE and LENGTH fields to keep the legacy STA off the air for a desired period of time Æ The duration indicated in the L-SIG can exceed the actual duration in the HT-SIG MAC uses this as a protection mechanism Æ For a HT-PPDU, L-SIG RATE is hard-coded at 6 Mbps ■ Submission max MSDU length = 2304 Bytes spoofing duration up to ~3 msec 26 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 HT PPDU Detection L-STF L-LTF L-SIG HT-SIG or L-STF L-LTF Legacy DATA L-SIG Legacy Compatible Preamble Æ Auto-detection ■ ■ ■ Submission scheme on HT-SIG Q-BPSK modulation (BPSK w/ 90 -deg rotation) Invert the polarity of the pilot tones Combined methods provide speed and reliability 27 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MIMO AGC single spatial stream L-STF power measurement L-LTF L-SIG multiple spatial streams HT-SIG HT-DATA AGC locked Accurate measurement of MIMO channel power requires uncorrelated STFs Æ Tone interleaving the L-STF leads to perfect decorrelation ■ Æ if L-STF is tone-interleaved, it will hurt legacy interoperability with cross-correlation RX Cyclic delay across the L-STF is nearly decorrelated ■ ■ however, large cyclic delay hurts interoperability with cross-correlation RX and, small cyclic delay suffers from inaccurate power estimation, as shown next Submission 28 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Power Fluctuation of L-STF w. r. t Data power 1 0. 9 STF = Tone Interleaved STF = Cyclic Delay 0. 8 2 x 2, TGn Channel D SNR = 30 d. B 0. 7 CDF(x) Power fluctuation with tone interleaving is within 1 d. B of the data power 0. 6 0. 5 Introduce a dedicated STF for MIMO that is tone interleaved 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 Reduces 1 bit in the ADC cost & power savings 0. 1 0 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 x = Power fluctuation of AGC setting w. r. t. data power (d. B) Submission 29 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Power Fluctuation of HT-LTF w. r. t. Data power 1 0. 9 HT-LTF = Walsh + Cyclic Delay 0. 7 CDF(x) Large deviation of HT-LTF power wrt data power will result in higher channel estimation error HT-LTF = Tone Interleaved 0. 8 2 x 2, TGn Channel D SNR = 30 d. B 0. 6 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 HT-LTF should be tone interleaved 0. 2 0. 1 0 -10 Submission -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 x = Power fluctuation of HT-LTF w. r. t. data (d. B) 30 4 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Tone Interleaved HT Training Fields Æ HT-STF ■ Æ 2 nd AGC measurement is used to fine-tune MIMO reception HT-LTF ■ ■ Submission Used for MIMO channel estimation Additional frequency or time alignment 31 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Summary of HT-LTF Æ Robust design ■ ■ Tone interleaving reduces power fluctuation 2 symbols per field • 3 d. B of channel estimation gain with baseline per-tone estimation • Enables additional frequency offset estimation Æ Per spatial stream training ■ ■ HT-LTF and HT-Data undergo same spatial transformation Number of HT-LTFs = Number of spatial streams Submission 32 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Legacy Interoperability of Preamble Cross-correlation of L-STS (TGn Sync) Period = 800 ns Cross-correlation of L-STS (WWi. SE) Period = 400 ns Potential issues with crosscorrelation receivers with WWi. SE preamble Submission 33 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Transmitted Signal. 11 a preamble (as used by TGn Sync) L-STF Tx 1 L-LTF L-SIG L-DAT WWi. SE preamble Tx 1 L-STF L-LTF L-SIG L-DAT Tx 2 L-STF(400 n) L-LTF(3100 n) L-SIG(3100 n) L-DAT(3100 n) C simulator Agilent E 4438 C Tx 1 Packet TGn generator Tx 2 Channel model Tx 2 Submission 34 Single input single output signal generator Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Measurement Setup TGn simulator Aeropeek NX Compare the RATE and LENGTH RATE LENGTH Wireless 5. 19 GHz 10 cm apart Omni transmit antenna Agilent E 4438 C Enhanced Signal Generator (ESG) Submission 35 WLAN card under test Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 WWi. SE preamble performance with Autocorrelation RX Laboratory Test with a legacy autocorrelation RX Submission 36 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 WWi. SE preamble performance with Crosscorrelation RX "Cross Correlation Vendor" (Channel model D) Performance limitation with a WWi. SE preamble Measured SIG FER 1. 0 E+00 1. 0 E-01 1. 0 E-02 Legacy w/o CDD FER Floor! Legacy w/ CDD (400 nsec) 1. 0 E-03 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Relative Tx power [d. Bm] Submission 37 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Implication of using WWi. SE preambles Æ Æ Legacy devices with a cross-correlation RX will not correctly decode a WWi. SE preamble Hence, such legacy devices will not defer to a WWi. SE HT transmission, potentially creating collisions in the BSS ■ Æ Æ BSS throughput would drop, and latency would increase WWi. SE preamble is not legacy compatible Lab test reinforces TGn Sync’s decision to use a 100% backwards compatible legacy preamble Submission 38 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 TGn Sync enhanced interleaver 1 st Spatial Stream 2 nd, 3 rd, or 4 th Spatial Stream Submission 39 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Enhanced Interleaver Results 1 to 2 d. B gain Submission 40 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 2 vs 4 pilots in MIMO ■ The TGn Sync Proposal uses the full 4 pilots (like. 11 a/b/g) • 2 pilots in WWi. SE provide marginal data rate increase: < 4% ■ Full CC 67 sims to compare multi- and single-stream cases: • Since data also will have diversity gain, and thus require less operating SNR, would the pilots now limit performance? • Single stream modes important: CDD (TGn Sync) , STBC (WWi. SE) ■ Analysis must consider differences in 11 n vs. 11 a: • • ■ Different preambles, antenna configurations Decoded data SNR improved due to MIMO (e. g, MRC, STBC) Thus pilot accuracy requirements also increase Comparing 11 n pilot SNR to 11 a is thus not sufficient Robustness to narrowband interference and impairments • These both reduce effective number of pilots – thus need margin ■ Full details in doc. 11 -05/1636 r 0 Submission 41 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Dual Stream Performance 1 d. B Submission 42 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Single Stream Performance 3. 5 d. B Submission 43 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Summary of 2 vs 4 pilots Æ Quantitative analyses show that using only 2 pilots causes significant performance degradation in many situations ■ 4 vs 2 pilots compared for 2 x 2 basic MIMO channel E • Dual stream: ~1 d. B loss • Single stream: 1. 5~3. 5 d. B loss. ■ Robustness • Performance loss w/ narrow-band interference or impairments: – 4 ~ 6 d. B loss with 2 pilots -> NOT ROBUST !! Æ Performance penalty of using only 2 pilots is not justified by the less than 4% data rate increase Submission 44 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Importance of Rate Feedback and Stream Control Æ Throughput is maximized if there is rapid convergence to a good choice of stream count and MCS ■ ■ Æ Receiver determines its preferred stream count and MCS ■ ■ Æ Based on observation of received HT-LTF in sounding packet Sends this choice back to transmitter using MCS Feedback (MFB) Transmitter makes a rate choice based on the MCS selection at RX ■ Æ Initial MCS/stream selection Ongoing tracking and optimization Under some circumstances, e. g. pairwise spoofing, TX must adhere to MFB Important for Basic MIMO, Spatial Spreading and Beamforming Submission 45 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Rate feedback in Basic MIMO MRQ (MCS Request) is sent in sounding packet: Æ ■ ■ RX gets estimate of full H matrix Channel quality estimates based on H matrix guide rate and stream selection MRQ payload in PHY sounding packet TX Ant 1 RX h 11 h 12 Full H matrix h 21 Ant 2 h 22 Number of streams and coding rate carried in MFB Submission 46 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Stream/Rate Control Approaches Æ SNR calculation performed at equalizer output: ■ ■ Can provide stream count and MCS selection Includes impairments due to channel estimation errors Æ SNR calculation performed by re-encoding decoded data and comparing it against decoder input: ■ Submission allows MCS selection, but not stream count 47 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Close Loop vs Open Loop Throughput Comparison Open loop vs closed loop comparison for 2 x 2 Tx. Bf = Transmit Beamforming; SS=Spatial spreading ■ ■ Open vs. Closed loop 200 MAC throughput [Mbps] 180 160 140 Tx. Bf 2% 120 SS closed loop 2% SS open loop 2% 100 Tx. Bf 10% 80 SS closed loop 10% 60 SS open loop 10% 40 20 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 SNR [d. B] Submission 48 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MSDU Delay CDF Target PHY PER = 10% Tx. Bf closed loop 10% PER SS open loop 10% PER Submission 49 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Is 40 MHz Mandatory? Æ Both 20 MHz & 40 MHz capabilities are mandatory ■ With exceptions due to regulatory requirements Æ Capability depends on regulatory domain (just like channelization plans): ■ ■ 20/40 MHz capable devices 20 MHz only capable devices Æ Both Submission types of devices are fully interoperable 50 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 20/40 MHz Operation Where Used 20/40 MHz Region (e. g. in US/Europe) 20 MHz Region (e. g. in Japan) 20/40 MHz Capable Device (e. g. in US/Europe) 40 MHz Operation (20 MHz Operation) 20 MHz Operation; 40 MHz disabled 20 MHz only Capable Device (e. g. in Japan) Seamless 20 MHz operation in a 40 MHz BSS 20 MHz Operation 51 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al. Where Bought Submission

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Why 40 MHz is Mandatory? 2 x 2 – 40 MHz • Only 2 RF chains => Cost effective & low power • Lower SNR at same throughput => Enhanced robustness 260 240 220 Over the Air Throughput (Mbps) 200 180 2 x 2 -40 MHz 160 4 x 4 -20 MHz Sweet spot for 100 Mbps top-of-MAC 2 x 3 -20 MHz w/ short GI 140 2 x 2 -20 MHz w/ short GI 120 100 80 60 Basic MIMO MCS set No impairments 1000 byte packets TGn channel model B 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SNR (d. B) Submission 52 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 20/40 MHz Interoperability Æ 40 MHz PPDU into a 40 MHz receiver ■ Æ 20 MHz PPDU into a 40 MHz receiver ■ Æ The active 20 MHz sub-channel is detected as the 20 MHz sub-channel with higher energy, cross-correlation or autocorrelation, etc. 40 MHz PPDU into a 20 MHz receiver ■ ■ Æ Get 3 d. B processing gain – duplicate format allows combining the legacy compatible preamble and the HT-SIG in an MRC fashion One 20 MHz sub-channel is sufficient to decode the L-SIG and the HT-SIG 20 MHz RX (either HT or legacy) will defer properly to 40 MHz PPDU See MAC slides for additional information on 20/40 inter-op Submission 53 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Optional PHY Features Submission 54 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Seamless Arch Extension for TX BF e. g. 2 Spatial Streams across 3 Transmit Antennas HT LTF Pilots Frequency Interleaver Submission Constellation Mapper 55 window Spatial Parser Puncturer Channel Encoder Scrambled MPDU Frequency Interleaver insert GI i. FFT Mod. insert GI window Pilots i. FFT Mod. insert GI window HT LTF Spatial Steering Matrix Per Spatial Stream Processing: HT-LTF & HT-Data undergo same spatial transformation Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Why introduce TX Beamforming? 1000 byte packets No impairment 20 MHz, channel D 4 TX-antenna AP 2 RX-antenna clie ~10 d. B gain of 4 x 2 -ABF over 2 x 2 -SD => cost effective client Submission 56 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 WWi. SE proposal can not support Tx Beamforming Æ Problem ■ ■ Æ WWi. SE channel estimation requires smoothing algorithms Channel smoothing cannot be applied with MIMO Beamforming WWi. SE GF structure does not allow omni-directional transmission of SIG-N Result: Hidden node problems ref: doc. 11 -05/1635 r 0 Submission 57 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Why smoothing is bad for MIMO BF? Æ Æ Smoothing requires high adjacent tone coherence However, we must estimate the combined channel Heffective = Hchannel * Vbeamforming ■ Æ Beamforming matrix has poor adjacent tone coherence Why? ■ Eigen-channel rank reversals • For each tone, eigen-channels are ranked by singular values • Eigen-channels can reverse ranks on adjacent tones – resulting in an adjacent tone swap of corresponding columns of BF matrix • Result – very low adjacent tone coherence Submission 58 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Example: 4 x 4, Channel D Submission 59 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Optional LDPC Æ Capacity approaching FEC ■ Æ Strong performance in AWGN and fading channels ■ Æ Iterative decoding superior performance Typically 2 -4 d. B improvement over convolutional codes, depending on channel conditions Code structure enables low complexity architectures ■ Layered belief propagation reduces memory requirements and improves convergence performance Submission 60 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Benefit of LDPC Coding 4 d. B of coding gain Submission 61 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 PHY Summary Æ Mandatory Rate of 140 Mbps in 20 MHz: ■ ■ Æ Low Cost & Robust Throughput Enhancement: ■ Æ 2 Spatial Streams 7/8 th rate coding 400 ns Guard Interval RX assisted Rate Control Scalable to 243 Mbps in 40 MHz Optional Robustness/Throughput Enhancements: ■ ■ ■ Submission LDPC Coding Transmit Beamforming Scalable to 630 Mbps with 4 spatial streams in 40 MHz 62 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Submission 63 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Scalable MAC Architecture LEGACY INTEROP. • Long NAV • Pairwise Spoofing • Single-Ended Spoofing BASELINE MAC • Robust Aggregation • Qo. S Support (802. 11 e) • Rx assisted link adapt. ADDITIONAL EFFICIENCY • Header Compression • Multi-Receiver Aggregation • Bi-Directional Data Flow • BA Enhancements Robust & Scalable MAC Architecture CHANNEL MANAGEMENT • 20/40 MHz Modes Submission 64 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Modifications to MAC Arch Æ November ■ Submission 2004 to January 2005 Added A-MSDU aggregation 65 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Baseline MAC Features Submission 66 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 A-MPDU Aggregation Structure Æ Æ Robust Structure Aggregation is a purely-MAC function ■ ■ Æ PHY has no knowledge of MPDU boundaries Simplest MAC-PHY interface Control and data MPDUs can be aggregated Submission 67 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 A-MSDU Aggregation Structure • Efficient Structure • MSDUs of the same TID can be aggregated • MSDUs with differing SA/DA can be aggregated Submission 68 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 A-MPDU Aggregate Exchange Sequences Æ A-MPDU Aggregate exchange sequences include single frames or groups of frames that are exchanged “at the same time” ■ ■ Æ Allows effective use of Aggregate Feature Allows control and data to be sent in the same PPDU An initiator sends a PPDU and a responder may transmit a response PPDU ■ Either PPDU can be an aggregate (“Initiator” / “responder” are new terms relating to roles in aggregate exchange protocol) Submission 69 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Basic Aggregate Exchange Submission 70 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 RX Assisted Link Adaptation Protocol Æ Æ Support for PHY closed-loop modes with on-the-air signalling Request for training and feedback are carried in control frames Rate feedback supported Transmit beamforming training supported ■ ■ Æ sounding packet calibration exchange Timing of response is not constrained permitting a wide range of implementation options Submission 71 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 RX Assisted Link Adaptation Protocol Submission 72 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Features Providing Additional Efficiency Submission 73 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Reverse Direction Data Flow Æ Gives an opportunity for a responder to transmit data to an initiator during the initiator’s TXOP Æ Aggregates data with response control MPDUs Æ Reduces Contention Æ Effective in increasing TCP/IP performance Submission 74 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Reverse Direction Protocol Submission 75 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Enhanced BA Mechanism Æ The originator may omit the inclusion of a BAR frame in an aggregated frame (Implicit BAR). Defines a compressed variant of the 802. 11 e BA MPDU (Compressed BA). ■ ■ Support for non-fragmented BA. This reduces the bitmap size to 1 bit per MSDU. Truncation of the bitmap to reduce the number of MSDUs acknowledged in the bitmap. Aggregation frame MD Æ Initiator D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 SIFS Compressed BA Responder 1 – 128 Frame Control Duration/ ID Compressed Submission RA Non-Frag TA BA Control Num MSDU 76 BA Starting Seq. Control TID Block. Ack. Bitmap FCS BA Bitmap size is fixed through BA setup. Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Multiple Receiver Aggregation Æ Aggregates can contain MPDUs addressed for multiple receiver addresses (MRA) Æ MRA may be followed by multiple responses from the multiple receivers Æ MRA is effective in improving throughput in applications where frames are buffered to many receiver addresses Submission 77 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Multiple Responses Æ MRA contains multiple IAC for ■ ■ Æ One per response At most one per receiver IAC specifies response offset and duration Submission 78 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Legacy Interoperability and Channel Management Submission 79 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Protection Mechanisms Æ Long. NAV ■ ■ Æ Pairwise Spoofing ■ ■ Æ An entire sequence is protected by NAV set using MPDU duration field or during contention-free period CF-end packet at end of EDCA TXOP sequence may be used to return unused time by resetting NAV Protection of pairs of PPDUs sent between an initiator and a single responder Uses Legacy PLCP header duration spoofing Single-ended Spoofing ■ ■ Protection of aggregate and any responses using legacy PLCP spoofing at the initiator only Can be used to protect multiple responses Submission 80 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Long. NAV protection Æ Æ Provides protection of a sequence of multiple PPDUs Provides a solution for. 11 b Comes “for free” with polled TXOP Gives maximum freedom in use of TXOP by initiator Submission 81 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Pairwise Spoofing Protection Æ Æ Protects pairs of PPDUs (current and following) Very low overhead, suitable for short exchanges, relies on robust PHY signaling Places Legacy devices into receiving mode for spoofed duration Spoofing is interpreted by HT devices as a NAV setting Submission 82 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Single-Ended Spoofing Protection Æ Æ Protects MRA and all responses Very low overhead, suitable for short exchanges Places legacy devices into receiving mode for spoofed duration Same level of protection as initiator CTS-to-Self ■ Assuming CTS is sent at the lowest rate Submission 83 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Operating Mode Selection Æ BSS operating mode controls the use of protection mechanisms and 20/40 width switching by HT STA ■ Æ Supports mixed BSS of legacy + HT devices HT AP-managed modes ■ ■ If only the control channel is overlapped, managed mixed mode provides a low overhead alternative to mixed mode If both channels are overlapped, 20 MHz base mode allows an HT AP to dynamically switch channel width for 40 MHzcapable HT STA Submission 84 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 20 MHz-base Managed Mixed Mode ch_a (control) Carrier Sense (CS) Bcn/ ICB CS CTS self /Bcn CFEnd 40 MHz CS RCB CFEnd 20 MHz t ch_b (extension) NAV ch_a NAV ch_b NAV ch_a+ch_b Submission t NAV 85 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 System Simulation Results Æ Æ Compliant to TGn FRCC requirements 3 independent MAC simulations ■ ■ ■ Æ Æ 802. 11 -04/893 802. 11 -04/894 802. 11 -04/1359 FRCC Results and analysis of MAC features is presented in 802. 11 -04/892 Detailed description of MAC simulation methodology in 802. 11 -04/895 Submission 86 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Selected System CC Performance CC# CC 3 CC 18 CC 19 Name List of goodput results for usage models 1, 4 and 6. HT Usage Models Supported Non-Qo. S (Measured aggregate throughput / offered aggregate throughput) HT Usage Models Supported (number of Qo. S flows that meet their Qo. S requirements) CC 58 HT Spectral Efficiency Submission Result HCCA 2 x 2 x 20 2 x 2 x 40 SS 1 (Mbps) 84 84 SS 1 + 87 135 SS 4 90 160 SS 4 + 98 189 SS 6 66 66 SS 6 + 85 166 SS 1 (Mbps/ratio) 31/1. 0 SS 4 81/18 151. 033 SS 6 21/1. 0 SS 1 17 of 17 SS 4 18 of 18 SS 6 39 of 39 bps/Hz 5. 3 5. 94 87 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Value of MAC Features Condition TGn bis S 1 (Mbps) S 4 (Mbps) S 6 (Mbps) Feature Value Pairwise spoofing (vs Long. Nav) 610% Long NAV 70. 25 - 71. 57 - 49. 92 - Pairwise Spoofing 77. 52 - 78. 64 - 53. 06 - Enhanced BA 212% - 73. 30 - 92. 40 - 63. 80 - + 75. 40 - 103. 3 - 65. 10 - - 82. 08 87. 26 90. 60 126. 91 62. 56 66. 96 + 83. 85* 94. 67 123. 28 141. 02 66. 00 96. 24 +Periodic RDR - - 142. 12 160. 12 - - - 82. 08 87. 26 90. 60 126. 91 62. 56 66. 96 + 83. 39* 87. 98 96. 79 127. 98 62. 72 68. 56 Reverse Direction Header Compression Submission 536% 26 56% 1 -6% 88 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Comparison of TGn. Sync and WWi. SE System Simulation results References: 11 -04 -892 r 3 – TGn. Sync MAC results 11 -04 -877 r 8 – WWi. SE MAC results Submission 89 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 System Simulation Results CC# Name Scenario EDCA HCCA CC 3 Goodput 1 75/67 95/71 142/124* 164/127 66/64 88/70 84/83 135/121 160/178 189/186 66/65 166/105 1+ 4 4+ 6 6+ Blue = TGn. Sync Black = WWi. SE “+” scenarios have all BE traffic offered load increased to 100 mbps (s-1) or 30 mbps (s-4, 6) “*” - 1 QOS flow missed PLR target These results will improve when advanced beamforming, MRMRA and periodic RDR options are added Submission 90 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 System Simulation Results Æ TGn. Sync MAC results significantly outperform WWi. SE Submission 91 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Efficiency CC# Name Scenario EDCA HCCA 1 32/27 36/28 50/47 58/48 24/25 32/27 32/33 51/47 56/67 67/70 24/25 62/40 1+ CC 24 MAC Efficiency 4 4+ 6 6+ Blue = TGn. Sync Black = WWi. SE Submission 92 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Efficiency Æ TGn. Sync MAC efficiency significantly outperforms WWi. SE Submission 93 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Summary Æ Baseline Features ■ ■ ■ Æ Additional MAC Efficiency ■ ■ Æ Header Compression Multi-Receiver Aggregation Bi-Directional Data Flow Enhanced Block ACK Legacy Compatible Protection Mechanisms ■ ■ ■ Æ MAC Level A-MPDU and A-MSDU Aggregation Qo. S Support (802. 11 e) Receiver assisted link adaptation Long NAV Pairwise Spoofing Single Ended Spoofing Scalable Channel Management ■ Submission 20/40 MHz Operating Modes 94 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 List of References Æ Æ Æ IEEE 802. 11 -04/887, "TGn. Sync Proposal Summary" IEEE 802. 11 -04/888, "TGn. Sync Proposal“ (This document) IEEE 802. 11 -04/889, "TGn. Sync Proposal Technical Specification" IEEE 802. 11 -04/890, "TGn. Sync Proposal FRCC Compliance" IEEE 802. 11 -04/891, "TGn. Sync Proposal PHY Results" IEEE 802. 11 -04/892, "TGn. Sync Proposal MAC Results" IEEE 802. 11 -04/893, "TGn. Sync Proposal MAC 1 Simulation Results" IEEE 802. 11 -04/894, "TGn. Sync Proposal MAC 2 Simulation Results“ IEEE 802. 11 -04/1359, "TGn. Sync Proposal MAC 3 Simulation Results“ IEEE 802. 11 -04/895, "TGn. Sync Proposal MAC Simulation Methodology" You may also direct questions to info@tgnsync. org For additional details, refer to http: //www. tgnsync. org Submission 95 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Modifications since Nov 2004 PHY Æ Added Optimized ■ Æ MAC interleaver specification for 20 MHz and 40 MHz channelizations ■ A-MSDU aggregation Completed merger process with LDPC partial proposals Submission 96 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Key Features Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Submission Scalable PHY & MAC Architecture 20 and 40 MHz channels – fully interoperable Data rate scalable to 630 Mbps Legacy interoperability – all modes Robust preamble Transmit beamforming Robust frame aggregation Bi-directional data flow Fast link adaptation 97 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Glossary Submission 98 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Backup Submission 99 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Challenges in HT Environment Æ Æ Æ HT requires an improvement in MAC Efficiency HT requires effective Rate Adaptation HT requires Legacy Protection Submission 100 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Header Compression Æ MHDR MPDU carries repeated Header fields Æ CHDATA MPDU refers to previous MHDR MPDU ■ ■ Submission HID field ties the two together Context only within current aggregate 101 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Periodic Multi-Receiver Aggregation Submission 102 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Following Packet Descriptor (FPD) Protocol Submission 103 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MIMO Power Management Æ Timed Receive Mode Switching (TRMS) allows a STA to operate with only 1 of its receive chains enabled most of the time ■ ■ Æ Switch to fully enabled when the STA transmits a frame Hold-on timer keeps the STA fully enabled for a known period of time Good for bursty traffic ■ Submission reduced latency compared to other methods of power saving 104 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Channel Selection Æ Æ Æ Support 20/40 MHz and 20 MHz operating modes of whole BSS In 20/40 MHz mode, all legacy PPDUs are 20 MHz, all HT PPDUs exchanged between HT STA are either 40 MHz or 20 MHz depending on operating mode and STA capability Channel selection constraints ■ ■ Æ Partial overlap between HT systems is not allowed Legacy STAs are only allowed in the control sub-channel except in 20 MHz-base managed mixed mode An HT AP responds to changes in environment to maintain channel selection constraints Submission 105 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 MAC Architecture Submission 106 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 PHY Backup Slides Submission 107 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 Spatial Stream Tone Interleaving • Color indicates spatial stream • Each HT-LTF has equal representation from all spatial streams • Eliminates avg. power fluctuation across LTFs • HT-LTS symbols are designed to minimize PAPR • Distinct symbol designs for different number of spatial streams Submission 108 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.

January 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -04/888 r 6 HT-SIG Contents HT-SIG 1 MCS (6 bits) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20/40 BW (1 bit) SOUNDING PACKET (1 bit) 1 4 SCRAMBLER INIT (2 bits) RESERVED (1 bit) 0 3 AGGREGATE (1 bit) 2 SHORT GI (1 bit) 1 NUMBER HT-LTF (2 bits) 0 ADV CODING (1 bit) HTLENGTH (18 bits) 8 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 HT-SIG 2 CRC (8 bits) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SIGNAL TAIL (6 bits) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Transmit Order Submission 109 Syed Aon Mujtaba, Agere Systems, et. al.