March 2005 doc IEEE 802 11 050109 r

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Service Provider Requirements for 802. 11 n Detailed Authors: Date: 2005 -03 -16 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 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Abstract This presentation expands and provides details on presentation 11 -051644 -01 -000 n regarding Service Provider concerns over weaknesses/gaps within 802. 11 that have negative market impact. The presentation’s primary focus is 802. 11 n as it enables a true wireless triple play of voice, data and video delivery. If 802. 11 n does not address the issues listed, there will be a negative impact on Service Providers supplying the network link in high throughput applications. Resolving the weaknesses should be considered a major component of achieving “Broad Market Potential” and a truly “market-enabling standard. ” Not resolving the issues will lead to proprietary solutions being promoted into the market, the opposite goal of a standards effort. Submission 2 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 List of Contributors/Supporters • • • John Egan, Infineon, egan. external@infineon. com Larry Green, green@cmc. com L. Ji, lji@research. att. com W. T. Marshall, wtm@research. att. com Fanny Mlinarsky, fanny_mlinarsky@azimuthsystems. com H. R. Worstell, hworstell@research. att. com Submission 3 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 What do Service Providers need (in priority order) Highest possible consumer satisfaction… if WLAN doesn’t work faultlessly consumers blame Service Provider or set provider 1. Qo. S - primary requirement – video and high throughput data sessions (possibly pedestrian-speed mobile) 1. Streaming, high data rate video delivery, error free, with WLAN bandwidth priority 2. Management capability of WLAN resources/bandwidth 3. Reach versus rate, surrender some rate to get best reach 1. Longer Range with high data rate to enable extended range applications • Target reach/rates ~150 m@45 Mbps and ~300 m@25 Mbps 4. Mobility support 1. 2. 3. 4. Reduce Doppler Effect – ex. support for WLAN sets in pedestrian speed sessions Handoff Mesh Tight integration with mobile services to support IMS/MMS 5. Validate Encryption meets Content Provider requirements 6. Testability of any functionality to ensure qualification and certification ► 802. 11 action eliminates the need for proprietary solutions, boosts the market Submission 4 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Background slides • Following slides recap needs presented in 11 -05 -1644 -01000 n • Summary of messages – Service Providers will be impacted by the standards weaknesses – Service Providers deploy standards-based systems, systems that require non-standard functions to meet needs are unacceptable – High Throughput APs and Stations will drive broad market acceptance and use of WLAN, placing SPs in a position to face consumer complaints over issues unresolved in the standards, and so unresolved in 802. 11 n-based systems – SPs have specific concerns as listed Submission 5 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Example of Requested Evaluation Points Signal Distance & Drop - Interior Up to 6 walls? Submission 6 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Estimate Signal Drop Parameters for 2. 4 & 5 GHz • Estimated drops at 2. 4 GHz, do we use these? – ~9 d. B drop – Exterior Wall – ~6 d. B drop – Floor – ~3 d. B drop – interior (sheetrock) wall • What is 5. 8 GHz d. B drop by wall/floor/exterior wall • Small cell outdoor environment also requires further characterization Submission 7 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Is Multi-Dwelling Support Possible? • Curb-side or pole mounted AP • Few barriers (trees) in the way • Similar to “Outdoor” simulation definition, yet different application • Prefer to be able to transit through a house to far end - additional ~30 m • Service Radius to dwelling Point of Presence goals – 150 m @ target 45 Mbps over MAC – ~300 m @ 25 Mbps over MAC • Initiate further study to determine if 802. 16 is valid option versus 802. 11 for external applications Submission 8 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Example of Requested Evaluation Points Signal Distance & Drop - Exterior Composition and d. B impact? Submission 9 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Mesh/Hand-off/Overlap • If multiple APs in adjoining/overlapping areas… – Can one AP be a station of another (FTTCurb scenario, AP and STB/AP are typical scenarios) • Repeater or another AP – Can they be in a mesh configuration? • BSS coverage shaping via channel/Tx power/direction assignment • Data forwarding path – Can there be hand-off between them • What are considerations if Yes – – Errors, high error rate, even at fast handoff, is unacceptable Data rate change Security and how this is handled in a hand-off Presumes is high probability mobility session so need to address the small packet definition here as well or is in event of one AP failure and another taking over service – Interference between APs on unassociated LANs in MDU environment with overlapping coverage areas Submission 10 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 What this all nets out to… • To meet Broadest Market Potential – Need to meet Service Provider needs, as they… • Face the consumer in a high % of deployments • Will drive up mass Station deployments through AP deployments – Provide highest consumer satisfaction experience – Plug the holes regarding mobile sessions, including hand-offs, Qo. S between APs and Mesh Submission 11 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Details • TG efforts and standards to be evaluated as to changes needed to meet Service Provider requirements • Following slides cover issues with associated TG following the priority order established earlier, although management is across all aspects Submission 12 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 TG/Standards that Impact Service Providers Submission 13 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Qo. S Metrics Issue Set Qo. S requirements for application/session types TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n, 11 e, 11 t Delay, jitter, error rates by application 11 n, 11 e Qo. S for high traffic environments to ensure no artifacts on video, etc. Must be interference immune 11 n, 11 e Qo. S versus Handoff Must mandate no reduction in Qo. S below a defined level 11 n, 11 e, 11 t Qo. S for small packet with forwarding rate and throughput 11 n, 11 e, 11 k Qo. S/BW management for multi-AP environment where each one is on a separate LAN, unable to be co-managed Submission Comment 14 Example is Multi-Dwelling Unit (MDU) where each apartment dweller has an 802. 11 n WLAN. Qo. S for each apartment owner’s video streams, etc. is required. Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Video Transport Issues Issue Qo. S mandated for High Data Rate applications (video primarily) TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n, 11 e, 11 t Comment Enable overair guaranteed, not prioritized Qo. S to avoid artifacts in video session. Dynamic polling by AP based on real-time video traffic volume dynamics not a pre-determined static schedule 11 n, 11 v, 11 t Submission Manage LAN traffic to prevent impact of non-video related packets on video packets 15 e=Qo. S enhancements, t=testing Current 11 e HCCA Qo. S scheme only supports statically scheduled polling by AP, which is not well suited for (compressed) video streams whose instantaneous data rate may vary greatly at different times t=testing, v=network management Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Handle a 2 -way Mobile Video Session Issue How to handle mobile 2 -way video session TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n, 11 t Determine packet types used 11 n, 11 t Determine Doppler Effect for weak areas 11 n Determine how to handle and Qo. S 11 n, 11 t, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 v, 11 e, 11 w Handle fast retransmit of lost packets in streaming video. Special transmission profile for special application classes May need special adaptive link layer data transmission redundancy/recovery mechanism tailored for special application classes 11 n, 11 t, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 v, 11 e, 11 w Use of 2 APs with this application 2 Stations embedded in one device? Set application flags for packet type, not by device By making this application registration of packet type versus device, enables multifunction device definition with best WLAN performance 11 n Submission Comment 16 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Mobile Wireless LAN Station Support Issue Support for small, random packets in weak signal areas while station is mobile (WLAN SIP sets) to eliminate Doppler Effect TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation Comment 11 n, 11 t Enable small packet support in standard use small packet device flag to AP as describer in 11 -05 -1644 -01 -000 n 11 r, 802. 21 Additional link layer triggers exposed for network layer mobility mechanisms such as Mobile IP 11 n, 11 t Handling jitter and errors Set threshold for acceptable performance Set application flags for packet type, not by device By making this application registration of packet type versus device, enables multifunction device definition with best WLAN performance 11 n Submission 17 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Distance Requirement Issue Maximize in-home distance and then determine rate TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation Comment 11 n, 11 t Define what are in--home disturbers on 1 floor and agree on these Suggest 6 walls between AP and furthest station at 33 m. Microwave ovens, refrigerators, DECT/Wireless sets @ 2. 4 and 5. 8 GHz 11 n, 11 t Determine multi-floor coverage possibilities 1 above and 1 below, d. B impact of floors and then walls Define target maximum outdoor coverage radius Requires balance of user expectation of performance, technical viability, and economics (e. g. wireless + FTTC bundled costs) 11 n Submission 18 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Large Area Deployment Support Issue Maximize in-home distance and then determine rate TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation Comment 11 n, 11 e, 11 k, 11 v Coordination function for Co-channel BSSs, what and how. Limited available spectrum may not be sufficient to create enough spatial separation to avoid interferences among nearby co-channel BSSs. Current TGs focus on intra-BSS operations. Additional services and access to services needed for coordination function. 11 k, 11 v Measurement based automatic configuration of radio (channel, power, etc) Submission 19 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 External AP reach into the home Issue Reach must be 150 m @4 5 Mbps and 300 m @25 Mbps above the MAC measured within the home after signal penetration of "typical outside wall" TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n Work to determine what is possible, reach is most important factor 11 n Determine use of Beamforming versus MIMO in this context 11 n Determine what is definition of outside wall and components of such Aluminum siding and foil faced insulation may be problematic 11 n, 11 e, 11 t Qo. S to ensure confidence of service delivery Separate access and traffic mechanisms to provide load-independent application for service, eliminate Qo. S traffic impacts by those wishing to enter system 11 n, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 v, 11 t, 11 w Use of AP or repeater in the home to regenerate signal and provide coverage, enable hand-off from external to internal AP r=fast roaming (between AP and repeater), i=security, s=mesh, k=resource measurement, v=network management, t=testing, w=security of management frames 11 n, 11 r, 11 i, 11 s, 11 k, 11 v, 11 t Interoperability with legacy Wi-Fi equipment Large deployment of Wi-Fi equipment. How to integrate or at least co-exist Submission Comment 20 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Handoff (AP/AP/Repeater) Issue Handoff between APs or between AP and repeater with no or minimal impact on station (ex. Vo. IP station crossing coverage areas) TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n, 11 t, 11 e, 11 v, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 w Agree on maximum allowed errors, jitter rate, delay 11 n Differentiate between repeater and second AP (Mesh) as to topology and methodology of handoff 11 n, 11 t, 11 e, 11 v, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k Adjust appropriate definitions 11 n, 11 t, 11 e, 11 v, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 w Pre-handoff authorization enabled to shorten handoff interruption time Submission Comment 21 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Repeaters Issue Use of Repeaters in the home, including crossover repeaters between 2. 4 and 5. 8 GHz TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n Define repeater 11 n Determine data link between repeater and main AP and management of repeater by main AP 11 n Define radio spectrum use between repeater and main AP, and determine impact n throughput at repeater and main AP May want reduced rate or reach at repeater to enable maximum rate/reach at main AP 11 n, 11 t, 11 e, 11 v, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 w Frequency crossover management WLAN handover 11 n, 11 t, 11 e, 11 v, 11 r, 11 s, 11 k, 11 w Define methodology of handoff between repeater and main AP, between repeater and other repeater (2 scenarios… on same main AP or other main AP), between repeater and other main AP Determine Maximum number of hops for Qo. S Submission Comment 22 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Handoff (Mobile/AP) Issue Handoff between AP and Mobile service with no or minimal impact on station (ex. Dual mode station crossing coverage areas while in a call or idle) TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 r Agree on maximum allowed errors for call in progress 11 r While on a Mobile call and shifting onto AP coverage, includes security, Mesh, fast handoff, identification, pre-handoff authorization 11 r While on a WLAN call and shifting from AP to Mobile Carrier, includes security, Mesh, fast handoff, identification, pre-handoff authorization 11 r Idle set on WLAN needs to send “I am available” message to Mobile Carrier periodically 11 r AP must notify Mobile Carrier it is operational and able to make/take handoffs Submission Comment 23 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Encryption Issue Encryption to meet Content Provider (CP) concerns TG Issue/Resolution/Recommendation 11 n Determine what needs are 11 n, 11 w Analyze needs versus existing standards 11 n Liaise with CPs to determine agreement on means to reach satisfactory results 11 n, 11 w Incorporate changes Submission Comment 11 w is seen as extending work of 11 i 24 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Testability Requirement • Objective test methodology for performance verification is key to enabling: – – – • • Performance optimization (if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it) Verification of performance requirements Effective comparison of products from different vendors Design 11 n devices for testability in cooperation with TGT Important to agree on measurement methodology for – – – – – Submission Rate vs. range (reach) Voice and video quality vs. range Throughput of STAs Forwarding rate of APs and repeaters as a function of packet size, data load and client load Performance of voice and data services as a function of call load, AV stream load, background data load and client load Qo. S performance and Qo. S impact on above measurements Security settings impact on above measurements Handoff time Qo. S vs. handoff 25 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Wrap Up • Service Provider needs go beyond 802. 11 n extending eventually to 4 G framework • 802. 11 n should be focal point as is “enabling standard” • Requires liaison and inter-TG work to ensure complete resolution of issues – 802. 11 n should lead this • 802. 11 n should down select then add this work as mandatory for TGn completion of its task Submission 26 Brian Ford, Bell. South

March 2005 doc. : IEEE 802. 11 -05/0109 r 3 Actions 1. WNG assesses SP requirements 1. Determine 802. 11 validity by concern 1. Agree on prioritization and what is mandatory for TGn to do 2. Determine what may be out of scope for 802. 11 2. Recommend future action 1. TGn focal points with mandatory action required to complete effort 2. Appoint TGn as oversight group to manage completion of work by other TGs 3. Other TG action items 4. Liaison/joint efforts between TGs or TGs and outside groups 5. Refer to 802. 11 any that should be for a new SG 2. TGn assumes role of responsibility for resolving issues agreed upon before TGn work completed Submission 27 Brian Ford, Bell. South