Mar 2010 doc IEEE 802 11 100219 r

  • Slides: 13
Download presentation
Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 802. 11 -- Interworking

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 802. 11 -- Interworking with 802. 1 Qat Stream Reservation Protocol Date: 2010 -02 -14 Authors: Submission Slide 1 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Abstract This submission is

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Abstract This submission is an overview of proposed input from 802. 11 to 802. 1 Qat Annex-Q Clause Q. 2 -Discussions on the normative text (10/137 r 0) corresponding to 09/926 r 7 spawned interest in revisiting the solution proposed and seek a ‘future proof’ alternative, if possible. Submission Slide 2 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Handling SRP Reservation Requests

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Handling SRP Reservation Requests Submission Slide 3 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Common Scenarios Listener(s) Talker

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Common Scenarios Listener(s) Talker DMN Q-AP Q-STA Q-STA Alternate Data Path Talker Submission Listener(s) Talker Listener(s) Slide 4 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Advanced Scenario: STA is

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Advanced Scenario: STA is an Intermediate node or a Talker/Listener(s) • • DMN Q-STA are intermediate nodes, Talker or Listener Note: This scenario is included for completeness. Support for this requires resolution of the “Station Bridge issue*”. Q-AP Q-STA Talker Q-STA Listener(s) * See http: //www. ieee 802. org/1/files/public/docs 2008/avb-nfinn-802 -11 -bridging-0308 -v 3. pdf Submission Slide 5 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 MSPRDU Processing at the

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 MSPRDU Processing at the Q-AP/DMN (adopted proposal) • • • A Q-STA can either be Talker/Listener or an intermediate node in the path from the Talker to the Listener. An intermediate node Q-STA or a Q-STA that is also the Talker/Listener just pass the MSRPDU to the Q-AP forwards the MSRPDU to the Q-AP’s DMN invokes MLME-Reserve. request or MLMEQuery. request with parameters corresponding to the received SRP Reservation/Query request If the MSRPDU is a Reservation Request and the Q-AP has sufficient resources: • Q-AP’s SME issues a MLME. ADDTS. response to the talker • Q-AP’s SME issues a MLME. ADDTS. response to the listener Q-AP responds to the DMN with a MLME-Reserve. confirm or MLME -Query. confirm Submission Slide 6 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 MSRP Handling at Q-AP/DMN

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 MSRP Handling at Q-AP/DMN (to Talker/Listener) Submission Slide 7 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Table Q. 3 SRP

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Table Q. 3 SRP to 802. 11 SME Qo. S Services Mapping MSRP Attribute MAD Primitive 802. 11 SME Qo. S Service Description Talker Advertise MAD_Join_Request (new) SME. QUERY Query bandwidth availability without reservation Listener Ready or Listener Ready Failed MAD_Join_Request (new) SME. ADDTS Reserve bandwidth for a stream Listener Ready or Listener Ready Failed MAD_Join_Request () SME. ADDTS Modify bandwidth reserved for a stream – no renewal needed, if requirements have not changed. Listener Request Removed MAD_Leave_Request () SME. DELTS Free bandwidth associated with a stream MAD – MRP (Multiple Registration Protocol) Attribute Declaration Submission Slide 8 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Changes to 802. 11

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Changes to 802. 11 – Summary 1. Ability for QAPs to send Autonomous ADDTS Response 2. Add ADDTS Response. indication to the STA MLME interface 3. To the DMN 802. 11 interface (out of scope for 802. 11) • • Add SME-QUERY. {request|confirm} Add SME-ADDTS. {request|confirm} 802. 1 Qat 1. 2. 3. 4. Mandate that 802. 11 STAs and APs supporting SRP shall also support EDCA Admission Control The 802. 11 AP and SRP DMN shall co-exist in the same device The SRP DMN shall generate 802. 11 TSPECs as described in document 09/926 r 7 Mandate that 802. 11 STAs and APs supporting SRP shall encapsulate and de-encapsulate the 802. 1 q Tag Submission Slide 9 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Summary of discussions in

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Summary of discussions in LA • Need a discussion on the internals of 802. 1 Qat as far as SRP goes – • • Scheduled for the joint meeting with 802. 1 AVB in March, 2010 How does the current proposal (10/137 r 0) deal with Power Save? How does the current proposal deal with TSPEC, TCLAS and TCLAS processing negotiation? Would the current proposal be able to take advantage of enhancements in 802. 11? Should the solution be the same irrespective of if the 802. 11 STA is a Talker/Listener or is just a node in the path from the Talker to the Listener? Submission Slide 10 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Alternate Proposal-A -- MSRP

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Alternate Proposal-A -- MSRP Handling at Q-AP/DMN (to Talker/Listener) Q-STA at the Talker end parses SRP and invokes corresponding 802. 11 mechanisms Synchronization issues need to be addressed Submission Slide 11 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Alternate Proposal-B -- MSRP

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Alternate Proposal-B -- MSRP Handling at Q-AP/DMN (to Talker/Listener) Need a new “Reserve” management frame from AP to STA at Talker end does not have to parse SRP messages Submission Slide 12 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Straw Polls 1. Should

Mar 2010 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -10/0219 r 0 Straw Polls 1. Should we retain current solution? 2. Is Alternate Proposal-B sufficient to address all concerns raised in LA? 3. Should we allow both options – current solution + Alternate Proposal-B or just Alternate Proposal-B? Submission Slide 13 Ganesh Venkatesan, Intel Corporation