Transcript C802.20 04 74

Project
IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/>
Title
Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status Update
Date
Submitted
2004-09-12
Source(s)
Farooq Khan
1301 E Lookout Dr.
Richardson, TX 75082
Re:
802.20 Call for Contributions: Session # 10 – September 12-17, 2004
Abstract
This contribution provides update of 802.20 evaluation criteria group activities.
Purpose
Review
Notice
Release
Patent
Policy
Voice: +1 972 761 7929
Fax: +1 972 761 7909
Email: [email protected]
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. 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.
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 802.20.
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3> and in Understanding
Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>.
802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic
Models Status Update
Farooq Khan
IEEE 802.20 Interim Meeting
Berlin, Germany
September 12-17, 2004
Evaluation Criteria Status
•
Two AHGs during the May Interim:
–
–
•
Five conference calls since May Interim:
–
–
–
–
–
•
06/06:
06/15:
06/29:
08/24:
08/31:
RF Performance Characteristics
Traffic models
Link-system interface
RF Performance Characteristics
Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI) modeling
Open issues not discussed:
–
•
Link-system interface
Channel Models
Phased approach, Link budget criteria, application specific
fairness/outage criteria and system simulation calibration etc.
Updated 802.20 Evaluation Criteria Version 11 document available now:
–
–
Evaluation criteria and traffic models documents merged in Version 10
Text proposals on RF performance characteristics and ACI modeling
included in Version 11
-3-
RF Performance Characteristics
• Proposed key RF performance characteristics
– Transmitter power, Transmitter Emission Mask, Adjacent
channel (power) Leakage Ratio
– Receiver Sensitivity, Receiver Selectivity, Receiver Blocking
• Decided to use normalized Transmitter power
– 43dBm/MHz
• Adjacent Channel Interference Modeling
– When multiple frequency channels are deployed in an
assigned channel block, the effect of adjacent channel
interference modeled and included in the link level
simulations.
– A non-linearity model for the power amplifier required
(TBD)
• Open issue: 43dBm/MHz power applies to maximum or average
PA power?
– FER Link performance curves under the effect of ACI are
generated and the result of link performance incorporated
into the system level simulation.
-4-
Traffic Models
• Specification of traffic mix
– Discussed various possible approaches
– Phase 1 use full buffers model
– A few other traffic scenarios can be defined for the subsequent
phase of the simulations, for example:
• Separate simulation with VoIP traffic only
• Separate simulation with web browsing traffic only
• A traffic mix scenario
• FTP traffic model
– Decided (06/15/2004) not to modify the “think time” behavior
in the existing FTP traffic model.
• VoIP Traffic Model
– Need to finalize on VoIP source traffic model
• Contributions invited on Wireless multi-party Gaming traffic
models
-5-
Link-System Interface
• Actual link curves is the default methodology for the
link-system interface:
– Can always be used even if an agreement on a common
methodology is reached.
• The group is trying to define a common methodology
for the link-system interface.
– If a common methodology is used then no justification is
required from the proponent
• In the absence of a common methodology, a technology
specific methodology can be used if provided with full
verification subject to the satisfaction of the group.
-6-
Common LSI Methodology
• A contribution, summarizing different possible methods,
was discussed over the 06/29 conference call:
– 3GPP2 1xEV-DV/DO Method-1Quasi-Static Method,
– 1xEV-DV/DO Method 2 - Convex Method
– European IST project FITNESS Polynomial based method
– Methods to Predict Performance of Convolutional Codes
– 3GPP Exponential Effective SIR Mapping (EESM) for OFDM
• Need to define the test cases and the accuracy
requirements that would be used in the method
selection process
– The baseline for the accuracy will be actual link curves
-7-
Phased Approach
The 802.20 evaluation will be structured with multiple phases with each phase
progressively adding more complexity. The evaluation work for each proposal may then
be compared at each phase to ensure a progressive "apples to apples" comparison of
proposals. This structured approach will also provide performance metrics for the physical
and link layer performance early rather than later in the evaluation process.
Phase 1 of the evaluation will consist of:
- Items/issues/criteria that are required for the calibration of simulations
- Items/issues/criteria that will draw out the important differences between the
various proposals that cannot be otherwise inferred.
The goals at the end of phase 1 are, first, to achieve confidence that different simulation
models are calibrated and, two, to present fundamental performance metrics for the
physical and link layer of various proposals.
• The details of phase 1 are currently being discussed in the
evaluation criteria:
– Agreed to use 19-cells 3-sector wrap-around configuration, Full
buffers (hungry) traffic, simulation calibration, link-system
interface etc.
– Current Recommendation is to use suburban macro, 3 Km/h
pedestrian B and 120Km/h Vehicular B channel models.
•
The issues that need further consideration:
– Full-duplex simulation, and handoff modeling etc.
-8-
Link Budget Criteria
• Consensus on most of the link budget parameters
• Open issue: Should maximum range (link budget) or
equivalently maximum pathloss be used as a performance
metric for proposal comparison or not?
-9-
Application specific criteria
In the evaluation of spectral efficiency and in order to make a fair comparison of
different proposals, it is important that all mobile users be provided with a
minimal level of throughput. The fairness for best effort traffic (HTTP, FTP and full
buffers) is evaluated by determining the normalized cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the user throughput, which meets a predetermined function. For
applications other than best effort, application specific outage criteria are defined.
The proposals will also provide additional fairness metrics. The details of the
additional fairness metrics are TBD (see for example IEEE C802.20-04/05).
• A fairness criteria is defined for the best effort data
traffic:
– application specific outage and QoS (FER, delay etc.)
criteria need to be defined for other applications!
• Contributions are also invited on additional fairness
metrics
-10-
System simulation calibration
• The evaluation criteria would specify a system
simulation calibration process.
– Calibration would be done as part of phase 1 of simulations
• However, it is not clear, at this stage, to what level of
detail simulations need to be calibrated.
• The group is open to proposals to nail down the
calibration specifications.
-11-
Channel Models
• Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria
AHG (05/13/2004)
• Link-system interface:
– Use random phase in the link channel model
– Use actual AoA/AoD in the link/system simulations
• Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and linksystem interface (LSI) approach feasible
• Agree upon the table of model parameters which
comply with ITU models
• Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that
SCM-MIMO model collapses to ITU SISO model
• Channel mix issue needs to be addressed;
• Investigate the necessity of additional power delay
profile randomness across all users
-12-
Conference Calls Schedule
• A total of four conference calls till the November
Plenary:
– Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 6-8pmET
– Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 6-8pmET
– Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 6-8pmET
– Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 6-8pmET
-13-