1 / 7

Concerns on EDCF Admission Control

Concerns on EDCF Admission Control. Shugong Xu Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. E-Mail: sxu@sharplabs.com. Summary. Existing issues in current EDCF admission control proposal. What options we have? Straw poll. Existing issues in the current DAC.

kalil
Download Presentation

Concerns on EDCF Admission Control

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. Concerns on EDCF Admission Control Shugong Xu Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. E-Mail: sxu@sharplabs.com Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  2. Summary • Existing issues in current EDCF admission control proposal. • What options we have? • Straw poll Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  3. Existing issues in the current DAC • Many people in this group think it should be removed and/or replaced. AFAIK, The reason includes: • complexity concern from chip-makers • instability (not quit understand though, since no results shown so far) • difficulty in working with DLP ( the biggest existing hole, in my view, which can be addressed.) • should be addressed in 11e • what options we have? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  4. Option 1: Just remove it without replacement • NO new EDCF admission control will be introduced; • However, many people in this group think EDCF QoS should be more than just differentiation between traffics. • Which means user will expect same level of service between now and then, if running an application using EDCF. • Diffserv model from IETF can only work in light load situations since the space for differentiation in 11 is very limited. • Then no way to protect the existing QoS traffics • Document 02/544r0 demonstrated this. • What the EDCF QoS means then? More no-vote may be caused from this option. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  5. Option 2: replace it without explicit signaling • Using TSPEC, same way as for Polling-based access • Then we will have connection-based EDCF • setup, tear-down, time out, etc • kind of scary? We do not mind. :-) • Some may think it overkill using TSPEC • Why not just use polling based access if AP knows the desires of the STAs? • But why two different signaling systems if defining another signaling, like PSPEC? Sounds like more unacceptable to some folks. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  6. Option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet mechanism • Leave a hook, which allows the implementation decide • what kind of hook? • how those potential mechanisms work together will be a challenge. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

  7. Straw poll • Option1: Just remove it ! • Option 2: replace it with explicit signaling as in polling based access • option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet thing • option 4: do nothing • option 5: make it optional Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

More Related