1 / 4

Should dynamic TPC support be removed from TGh’s draft?

Should dynamic TPC support be removed from TGh’s draft?. Andrew Myles (Cisco Systems) 7 November 2001. Support for dynamic TPC should be removed from TGh’s future drafts. Situation TGh’s PAR is concerned with regulatory acceptance in Europe

brier
Download Presentation

Should dynamic TPC support be removed from TGh’s draft?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Should dynamic TPC support be removed from TGh’s draft? Andrew Myles (Cisco Systems) 7 November 2001 Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  2. Support for dynamic TPC should be removed from TGh’s future drafts • Situation • TGh’s PAR is concerned with regulatory acceptance in Europe • D1.0 currently specifies a support mechanism for dynamic TPC, which could be improved • Complication • There are no compelling reasons to include support for dynamic TPC in TGh’s future drafts • Key line • Support for dynamic TPC should be removed from future TGh drafts • However, dynamic TPC is desirable for reasons other than regulatory acceptance in Europe; a great topic for a new study group. Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  3. D1.0 currently specifies a support mechanism for dynamic TPC, which could be improved • D1.0 specifies a mechanism whereby the transmitted power (in 3dB steps) is included in the Service field of every PLCP header • The transmitted power field may be used to calculate the path loss between a source and destination • The calculated path loss could be used to help estimate the power required for transmissions in the reverse direction • However, the current facilities could be improved by: • including a receive margin indication in the Service field • reducing the step size to 1dB steps • Proposals along these lines have already been made; in addition, a proposal has been made to use management packets instead of the Service field Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

  4. There are no compelling reasons to include support for dynamic TPC in TGh’s future drafts Question Answer Reason to provide support for dynamic TPC? Is dynamic TPC required to satisfy European regulations? • No, because clearly we can satisfy European regulations by setting the local maximum to at least 3dB less than the regulatory maximum. no Is dynamic TPC a “nice” feature to have? • Yes, because it can reduce power consumption. However, this is not relevant to the TGh PAR. • Yes, because it reduces transmit power and thus potential interference to licensed users. However, this does not apply to DCF (particularly given the recommendation in D1.0), the most common mode. • Yes, because it reduces transmit power and thus potential interference to unlicensed users. However, this is not relevant to the TGh PAR. • Yes, because it could allow some STAs to use transmit powers close to the regulatory maximum while others use very low transmit powers. However, it is very difficult to calculate an average mitigation in this case, even if the regulatory authorities defined rules for integrating over time and space. no weak no weak Is there a downside to requiring dynamic TPC? • Yes, some existing proposals for dynamic TPC (eg those that use the Service field) may require chip spins • Nokia simulations suggest dynamic TPC can cause reduced capacity in DCF (without hidden station feedback) no no Situation – Regulatory & local maximums Andrew Myles, Cisco Systems

More Related