Transcript 15-03-0336-00-003a-Proposal-Evaluation-and-Open-Issues.ppt

Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
Submission Title: [Evaluation of TG3a Proposals and Open Issues]
Date Submitted: [Sept. 2003]
Source: [Inhwan Kim] Company [Samsung]
Address [416 Maetan3-Dong Paldal-Gu Suwon-Si Gyeonggi-Do, Korea 442-742]
Voice[82.31.200.2510], FAX: [82.31.200.3350], E-Mail:[[email protected], [email protected]]
Source: [Carl Mansfield, Susumu Kitaguchi, Song-Lin Young] Company [Sharp Corp, Sharp Labs. of America]
Address [5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd, Camas, WA, 98607]
Voice:[+1 360 834 8764], FAX: [+1 360 834 8696], E-Mail [[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]]
Re: [P802.15-03/276r0]
Abstract: [This document compares two Alt-PHY proposals vs. CE Requirements Criteria in doc.
03/276r0 and lists open issues common/specific to each proposal.]
Purpose: [The purpose of this document is to provide to TG3a a joint contribution of Sharp and Samsung
comparing the requirements of the CE industry with two TG3a proposals to aid in the selection process for
candidate Alt PHY.]
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.
Submission
Slide 1
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Evaluation of TG3a Proposals vs.
CE Requirements and Open Issues
Submission
Slide 2
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
CE perspective on criteria requirements (1)
Criteria
Home theatre
Portable
Cost and
Complexity
The minimum requirement is less than 802.11a
Minimum requirement is less than 802.11b
Desired Target is equivalent to Bluetooth
Desired target is less than Bluetooth
Interference
Robustness
Must coexist with 802.11a/b/g, cellular and cordless phones and
microwave ovens in 10-20cm range
Must coexist with 802.11a/b/g, GPS, cellular and cordless
phones within the same cabinet (1-5cm distance)
Number of overlapping SOP:
Same as <-
Multi-Piconet
Support


Absolute minimum: 4
Target: 8+
Degradation under SOP condition should not exceed 50%
throughput reduction with no error rate reduction.
Fast Connect
Power
Consumption
Size
Maximum acceptable time: 1 second
Maximum acceptable time: 1 second
Desired target: less than 500ms
Desired target: less than 200ms
Maximum: Less than 802.11a
Minimum: Less than 200mW
Maximum:
Desired: <300mW
Desired: less than 100mW
Antenna size: should be less than 4cm x 4cm (1cm x 1cm is
desirable) without degrading range and coverage performance
Module size without antenna must be small enough for
implementation within cellular handset (less than 5mm x 5mm)
Antenna size must be suitable for implementation within cellular
handset and CF card (less than 2cmx2cm required, less than
1cmx1cm desirable) without degrading coverage performance
Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 10
Submission
Slide 3
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
CE perspective on criteria requirements (2)
Criteria
Home theatre
Portable
98% Link success at 7m is required
95% Link success at 5m is required
98% Link success at 10m is desirable
Range and
coverage
Must apply to multi-path fading and shadowing environment
and with near-wall placement
Data Rate Sets
110Mbps at 10m is Mandatory
110Mbps at 10m is mandatory
480Mbps at 1m is useful for connection of portable devices, but
not considered mandatory
480Mbps at 1m is desirable
Ability to evolve to support higher throughput is desirable
Same as <-
Flexibility/
Scalability
Ability to support interoperable implementations with lower
throughput (down to 1Mbps), complexity and cost is desirable,
but only if the total cost saving exceeds 50% when compared to
the full implementation
Ranging/
Location
Awareness
Location awareness is desirable: range 10m, resolution <30cm
Location awareness is highly desirable: range 10m, resolution
<30cm
Must be available by 1H2005 (2H 2004 is desirable)
Must be available by early 2006 (mid 2005 is desirable)
Time to Market
Local Regulatory Desirable to have ability for manufacturer to configure by SW at Same as <time of assembly
Adaptability
Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 11
Submission
Slide 4
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (1)
Criteria
Cost and
Complexity
Interference
Robustness
Multi-Piconet
Support
Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0
Mode 1
Mode 2
Die size: 4.6(=2.7+1.9)mm2 (90nm),
6.8(=3+3.8) mm2 (130nm)
Size
• Mode 2 should identify incremental cost of frequency
dependent external components
Microwave oven: 0.16m
802.11a & b, 802.15.3: ~0.2m
Bluetooth (802.15.1) & 802.15.4: ~0.02m
Modulated interferer: SIR>-9dB(-3.6 in May)
Tone interferer: SIR>-7.9dB (-5.6 in May)
110Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4
given in Slide 29, up to 4 SOP.
Not disclosed
• Mode 2 performance is required
• For 802.11a/b/g, 0.2m does not meet Portable device
requirement of 1-5cm
110/200Mbps Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4
given in Slide 30, 31 respectively
up to 4 SOP.
• Mode 1 200Mbps performance required
• Degradation of throughput not reported, <50%
required
• Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired
200Mbps: NA
Not addressed
• New information required
110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOS
TX: 117/93mW
RX: 205/155mW
Sleep: 18/15uW
110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOS
TX: 186/150mW
RX: 271/209mW
Sleep: 18/15uW
• Mode 1 meets desired 300mW(Home theater) and
max. 200mW(Portable)
• Mode 2 (130nm) may not meet 200mW for Portable
PC & CF cards, memory stick,
and SD memory
form factors in 2005
16mmx13.6mmx3mm antenna
commercially available
Not addressed
• Antenna size meets both Home theater and Portable
requirement
Data do not meet
CE requirements
Submission
• Total cost/complexity should be compared to relative
scale of 802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for
Home theater, Portable applications respectively
90nm CMOS foundries available 1H2004
Digital portion (for PHY) gate count: 295k
External components: pre-selection filter, balun, crystal oscillator, voltage regulator, SRAM
Fast Connect
Power
Consumption
Die size: 4.8(=2.9+1.9)mm2 (90nm),
7.0(=3.2+3.8) mm2 (130nm)
Comments from CE prospects
• Data for 200Mbps required
• Not clear whether module meets 5mmx5mm
requirement for portable devices
• Not clear whether Mode 2 same as Mode 1
Additional
data required
Slide 5
Data meet CE
requirements
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (2)
Criteria
Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0
Mode 1
Mode 2
90% Link success for 8%PER of 1024 bytes:
Range and
coverage
Data Rate Sets
Flexibility/
Scalability
Ranging/
Location
Awareness
110Mbps
200Mbps
AWGN: 20.5m
AWGN: 14.1m
CM1: 11.5m
CM1: 6.9m
CM2: 10.9m
CM2: 6.3m
CM3: 11.6m
CM3: 6.8m
CM4: 11m
CM4: 5.0m
Mandatory: 55Mbps (header),
110, and 200Mbps
Optional: 80, 160, 320, and 480Mbps
• Performance data for Mode 2 required
AWGN: 18.4m
CM1: Not disclosed
CM2: Not disclosed
CM3: Not disclosed
CM4: Not disclosed
• 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m
(desired) for Home theater not used
• 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not
used
• Data rate set meets requirements
Data rate: 55-480Mbps
Frequency: Mode 1(Mandatory)& Mode 2 (Optional)
Complexity: Mandatory data rates require only one DAC & mixer for TX
train; Digital section scales with future CMOS process; implementation could
always trade off complexity for performance
Power: half rate PRF increases off time to enable power saving modes; trade
off power consumption for range and data rate
• Support of higher throughput meets desired
requirement
• Support for interoperable implementations of lower
throughput with reduced cost/complexity not
reported
Allow positioning accuracy to within a few centimeters
Exact mechanism is up to implementation
• Specific data for range and resolution required
Not clear whether it’s
same as Mode 1
Time to Market
Earliest complete CMOS PHY solutions
for integration: 2005
Local Regulatory
Adaptability
Sub-band can be adjusted for different regulatory areas
• Not clear whether availability is 1H2005 (required)
• Not clear whether Mode 2 availability same time as
Mode 1
• Adaptability meets CE requirements
• FH issue to be cleared by FCC
Data do not meet
CE requirements
Submission
Comments from CE prospects
Additional
data required
Slide 6
Data meet CE
requirements
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Proposal Responses, XSI /ParthusCeva -CDMA (1)
Criteria
Cost and
Complexity
Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3
Comments from CE prospects
• Total cost/complexity(Silicon+Module/External
Components+Antenna) should be compared to relative scale of
802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable
applications respectively
RF front end: 4.7x4.1mm, 0.18um SiGe
PLCP BB: 4.4x4.4mm, 0.18um CMOS
0.18um CMOS/SiGe(RF front end) process in 2002
Gate count: TBD
External components: Not disclosed
• Gate count information required
• External components information required
802.11b/g, 802.15.3/4, microwave ovens: Receiver does not respond to either
2.4GHz or 900MHz ISM bands
802.11a: Receiver does not respond to either 5GHz NII bands
Processing gain provides SIR>-14dB for narrow band (modulated or tone)
interference
Notch filter can provide up to 40dB additional interference rejection
• No results reported regarding to 10-20cm for Home theater or 15cm for Portable devices required for all interference sources
Multi-Piconet
Support
114/200Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in
Slide 39, 40 for up to 4 SOP
RMS cross-correlation < -15 dB in a flat fading channel
• Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required
• Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired
Fast Connect
Not addressed
• New information required
Interference
Robustness
Power
Consumption
TX: 107mW (RF & PLCP)
RX: 174mW (RF & PLCP)
Sleep: 2mW (PLCP)
Idle: 23mW (PLCP)
• Data meet desired 300mW(Home theater) and required
200mW (Portable) if 90nm CMOS used
• Data for processes used in current design required
Note:
Based on 90nm CMOS
• LB antenna meets required 4cmx4cm for Home theater; HB
antenna meets required 2cmx2cm for Portable
• LB antenna exceeds 2cmx2cm required by Portable
• Module size information required
• External components information required
Antenna size:
LB: 1.1x1.1 in; HB: 0.6x0.6 in
Size
Module size not disclosed
External components not disclosed
Data do not meet
CE requirements
Submission
Additional
data required
Slide 7
Data meet CE
requirements
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Proposal Responses, XSI/ParthusCeva-CDMA (2)
Criteria
Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3
Comments from CE prospects
Average PER for 90% Link success (8% PER)
Range and
coverage
Data Rate Sets
Flexibility/
Scalability
Ranging/
Location
Awareness
Time to Market
114Mbps
200Mbps
AWGN: 21.6m
AWGN: 15.8m
CM1: 15m
CM1: 11.1m
CM2: 13.5m
CM2: 10m
CM3: 11.5m
CM3: 8.8m
CM4: 10m
CM4: 7.5m
LB: 28.5-400Mbps
HB: 57-800Mbps
Duplex: up to 1.2GHz
4 types of spectral usage (LB, HB, Duplex, Joint band) for up to 1.2Gbps
• Data rate set meets requirements
• Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement
Architecture allows components (FEC, each receiver channel, etc) usage
to be adjusted such that incremental hardware additions result in the
highest incremental SNR improvement.
• Support for interoperable implementations of lower
throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported
10cm resolution in 20m range
• Range and resolution meet requirements
LB: Production chip end of 2003
HB & Duplex: N/A
• LB meets desired 2H2004
• Availability of other bands (HB, duplex, joint) required
• Availability of CMOS implementation required)
Local Regulatory Center frequency and bandwidth adjustable without changes of silicon
Adaptability
Data do not meet
CE requirements
Submission
• 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m (desired) for
Home theater not used
• 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not used
• Performance data for 90% Link successful distance
preferred for comparison
Additional
data required
Slide 8
• Adaptability meets CE requirements
Data meet CE
requirements
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Common Issues
• Cost/Complexity:
– External components, antenna, and PCB should be included in addition to chip
die sizes
• Multi-piconet support:
– No data for SOP more than 4 (8 desired). Please provide data for SOP more
that 4.
– Degradation of throughput has not been reported. Please provide.
• Connection Time:
– Please provide Connection Time assessment and data for evaluation
• Range/coverage:
– Both distance of 90% link success and distance of average PER for 90% link
success should be reported, or a conversion factor should be provided.
– 98%, 95% Link success distance for Home theater and Portable applications
respectively are required.
– Path loss exponents used in CM1-CM4 range calculations should be indicated
• Flexibility/Scalability:
– Support
Submission
of low throughput for less cost/complexity
not mentioned
Slide 9
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal
• Time-Frequency Code (TFC) management
– Code acquisition methods required for:
• New device association
• Scanning available TFC to initiate a new piconet
– Rotation Sequence (RS) vs. Channelization & Multiple Access
(See next slide):
• There appears to be a contradiction or ambiguity between the RS method described in
03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22 and the TFC method described in 03/268r0, p.35 Table 20.
• Please resolve the contradiction.
• Which of these two different methods was used to measure the performance reported in
MB-OFDM proposal?
– Synchronization of TFC
• It appears that SOP performance depends on synchronization of THC, i.e. 2 and 1
overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1 and Mode 2 respectively
• Unsynchronized TFC of two different piconets will have 4 and 2 overlapped sub-bands for
Mode 1, 2 respectively
• Scenarios regarding TFC synchronization for SOP performance requires clarification
• Collisions of sub-band frequency and adjacent frequency to be accounted for.
Submission
Slide 10
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
MB-OFDM - TFC vs. Rotation Sequence
Source: 03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22
RS-1
TFC-1
TFC-3
TFC-2
TFC-1
TFC-2
TFC-3
RS-2
TFC-2
TFC-3
TFC-1
TFC-3
TFC-2
TFC-1
• In slide 10 of Doc. 03/267r5 ,”For a given superframe, the time-frequency code is
specified in the beacon by the PNC. The time-frequency code is changed from one
superframe to another in order to randomize multi-piconet interference”
• Randomization of sub-bands by Rotation Sequence (RS), in p.50 of Doc. 03/268r0
Source: 03/268r0, p.35 Table 20
Channel Preamble
Number Pattern
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
Mode 1: Length 6 Time
Frequency Code
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
Mode 2: Length 7 Time Frequency
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
4
7
3
6
2
5
1
3
5
7
2
4
6
• Four channel no. (TH codes) each mode for multiple access. (slide 21 of
Doc. 03/267r5 )
• 1.4.2 of Doc. 03/268r0 (p.35): “Channelization for different piconets is
achieved by using different time frequency codes for different piconets.”
Submission
Slide 11
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal - continued
• Management of operation mode:
– Mode 2 performance data is incomplete. Please provide
complete data.
– A discussion of the performance of hybrid operations is
requested
• Mode 1 & 2 in the same piconet.
• Mode 1 & 2 used in different piconets, collisions of TFC to be considered
• Hybrid SOP performance vs. throughput
– How is the decision to change Mode 1 and Mode 2 made?
– Who makes the decision to change modes?
Submission
Slide 12
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]
Sept. 2003
doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0
Questions on XSI/ParthusCeva Proposal
• Cost/Complexity and Size:
– External components need to be identified.
– What is the PLCP baseband gate count? It is listed as TBD (p.6,
03/154r3)
• Power consumption:
– Power consumption estimate given is for 90nm CMOS (p.6,
03/154r3).
– What is power consumption of current design?
– This is important since all the performance data reported is for the
current process used:
• 0.18um SiGe (RF front end) and CMOS(BB)
• Time to Market:
– The performance data associated with total CMOS implementation
(e.g. 90nm, 130nm process) should be reported.
– Please address the availability of HB and duplex, joint bands
Submission
Slide 13
Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]