1 / 19

High-efficiency Wi-Fi

High-efficiency Wi-Fi. Date: 2013-03-19. Authors:. Outline. We propose to start a new study group to enhance 802.11 PHY and MAC in 2.4/5 GHz bands

kinley
Download Presentation

High-efficiency Wi-Fi

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. High-efficiency Wi-Fi Date: 2013-03-19 Authors: Laurent Cariou, Orange

  2. Outline • We propose to start a new study group to enhance 802.11 PHY and MAC in 2.4/5 GHz bands • “High-efficiency Wi-Fi” targets the key issues that should be addressed to support continued growth and competitiveness of 802.11 across a broad range of market segments Laurent Cariou, Orange

  3. Status • In July 2012 meeting, Orange presented some requirements for 802.11 to improve the Wi-Fi experience for mobile devices, emphasizing cellular offload as a strong use case [1]. • A strawpoll proposing the creation of a study group was largely positive. • We received strong support and interest from many 802.11 actors, interested in this topic and willing to contribute. • In September 2012, Orange, Huawei, Samsung, NTT and others presented further arguments [2, 5, 3, 4, 8]. Since then, we continued our work to: • clearly identify the main problems to solve in IEEE 802.11 and clarify the scope • be confident that technical approaches exist that would allow these objectives to be met • During this period, it became clear that many of the key issues that should be addressed for cellular offload are common with many other market segments. • “High-efficiency Wi-Fi” enhancements have broad market appeal in multiple market segments to form a next-generation of 802.11. • We believe the current proposal has sufficient maturity to move to Study Group creation Laurent Cariou, Orange

  4. The mobile data explosion • The mobile data explosion is a combination of three components: • increased number of mobile devices (absolute, and per area) • increased requirements for per-device data throughput • increased usage of these mobile devices • Per-device data throughput • Today, a (reliable) 1 – 5 Mbps connection is adequate for a reasonable user experience with most mobile web applications, including video [6] • This minimum satisfactory throughput will grow 50% per year in the coming years [7] • due to increased cloud services, higher resolution video, … • Increased usage of mobile devices • The most significant contributor to the data explosion: predicted 45x growth in next 5 years • 55 MB/month in 2011  2.5 GB/month in 2016 for smartphones [7] • Operators will need to deploy Wi-Fi hotspots everywhere, including outdoors • Most of the environments – residential, enterprise, public spaces – will become high density scenarios xxx, Orange

  5. High-Efficiency Wi-Fi • The key point is the increasing usage of 802.11 in high density scenarios • This relates not only to operator hotspots, but equally to enterprise, residential, retail and ad-hoc scenarios • We propose “High-efficiency Wi-Fi” as a theme to drive the next generation of 802.11 • Resulting in enhanced Quality of Experience for a broad spectrum of 802.11 users in everyday scenarios • Three key focus points: • (1) To improve efficiency in dense networks with large no. of STAs • (2) To improve efficiency in dense heterogeneous networks with large no. of APs • (3) To improve efficiency in outdoor deployments xxx, Orange

  6. The main issues for enhancement xxx, Orange

  7. Summary • “High-efficiency Wi-Fi” aims to achieve a very substantial increase in the real-world throughput achieved by each user in the three types of scenarios described • Creating an instantly recognizable improvement in Quality of Experience of the major use cases • Generating spatial capacity increase (area throughput) • We believe such evolution will create a broad market appeal for multiple market segments and ecosystem players • Consumers, enterprise, operators, Wi-Fi Direct service providers, device vendors, TV/video, medical, … xxx, Orange

  8. Proposal and timeline • We propose to start a new study group to add new PHY and MAC enhancements focused on “High-efficiency Wi-Fi” • The scope and duration should be kept focused (at most as long as 11ac) • Focus on the primary spectrum of 802.11 in 2.4 and 5GHz, preserving backward compatibility • Main objectives of the study group will be: • Prepare use case documents, detail the list of problems and requirements • Develop performance metrics to address use cases and quantify objectives • Prepare PAR & 5C documents

  9. Straw Poll • Should IEEE 802.11 consider the creation of a study group to further discuss the topic of “High efficiency Wi-Fi” ? • Yes • No • Abstain Laurent Cariou, Orange

  10. Motion to create a Study Group • Request approval by IEEE 802 LMSC to form an 802.11 Study Group to consider High-efficiency Wi-Fi [as described in doc 11-13-xxxx] with the intent of creating a PAR and five criteria. • Moved: <name>, Seconded: <name>, Result: y-n-a Laurent Cariou, Orange

  11. References • [1] 12/0910r0, Carrier oriented WIFI for cellular offload, Orange • [2] 12/1123r0, Carrier oriented WIFI for cellular offload, Orange • [3] 12/1126r0, Wi-Fi techniques for hotspot deployment and cellular offload, Samsung • [4] 12/1063r0, Requirements for WLAN Cellular Offload, NTT • [5] 13/0098r0, 802.11: Looking Ahead to the Future – Part II, Huawei • [6] Cisco WLAN design guide for High Density • [7] Cisco VNI mobile 2012 • [8] 13/0113r0, Application and Requirements for Next Generation WLAN, Samsung xxx, Orange

  12. Annexes xxx, Orange

  13. Annex 1 Hotspot deployment scenarios MCS0 range AP AP • Hostpot deployments will scale between: • Street deployment for a blanket coverage of a neighborhood (typical cellular network pico-cell deployment) • 50 APs per km², 150-200m distance between hotspots • Very high density deployments (stadiums, train stations, …) • 6400 APs per km², 12-20m distance between APs • 0.5 users per m² STA 160-200m MCS6 range MCS0 range MCS6 range xxx, Orange

  14. Annex 1 Pico-cell street scenario AP AP • Characteristics of outdoor street deployments: • most deployments will be made with placement below rooftop (3 - 10m): lamp poles, hanged on cables, stuck to walls… • mostly side coverage (omni or directional) • ITU Micro (UMI) model could be a good fit • deployment is costly (backhaul, site rental…). As a consequence: • the distance between APs must be as high as possible (2 neighbor deployed APs will overlap close to the minimum sensitivity) – around 150-200 meters • AP Tx Power is high (23-30dBm) • less constraints on frequency reuse • high density of STAs, spread over the whole BSS coverage • heterogeneous dense deployment: potential high proportion of interfering APs in the coverage of hotspots • indoor home or shop private APs leaking outdoors (usually in hidden node situation) • at 2.4GHz, between 15 to 20 APs in all 3 channels (beacons already occupy 20% of channel) • other public hotspots • coordination is feasible if they belong to the same operator, is very difficult with other APs STA 160-200m

  15. Annex 1 Stadium / train station scenario MCS0 range • Characteristics of stadium/train station deployments: • side or overhead coverage (omni or directional) • very high user density (ex: hypothesis of 0.5 users/m²). As a consequence, • the distance between APs is reduced as much as possible (2 neighbor deployed APs willoverlap largely) – around 12-20 meters • AP Tx Power is usually reduced (6-12dBm) • high AP density: high constraints on frequency reuse: multi-BSS spatial capacity improvements MCS6 range • high density of STAs, regrouped over a limited range (higher MCSs) and not on the whole AP coverage (MCS0 range) • high co-channel interference coming from neighboring APs reusing the same frequencies • coordination is possible via the controller • potential interference coming from soft APs • more difficult to coordinate MCS0 range MCS6 range

  16. Annex 2 What are the main problems? • High number of STAs per AP • 802.11 channel access has been designed for and is effective with a limited number of users. However, with a high density of STAs: • limitations of CSMA-CA: inefficient after a certain density of STAs due to increased collisions • MAC efficiency/airtime use limitations: - much less efficient for a high number of users, each with limited throughput applications - airtime use can be very inefficient with a traffic mix (small and big packets) - a significant proportion of packets are very small - e.g. web browsing: <100B packets represent 90% UL packets and 25% DL packets • airtime use can be also very inefficient with a mix of legacy devices • management frames (e.g. probe requests/responses) consume a large fraction of theavailable airtime xxx, Orange

  17. Annex 2 Illustration: collision issues with high STA density per BSS • Average PER increases rapidly with the number of STAs, approaching 50% for 25 STAs • Throughput and latency and power consumption is strongly impacted • Most rate prediction algorithms in devices lower MCS when PER increases, leading to a spiraling down of throughput. • Example with a rate prediction AARF (PER based) • AARF reference: IEEE 802.11 rate adaptation: a practical approach Mathieu Lacage, Mohammad Hossein Manshaei, Thierry Turletti International Workshop on Modeling Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems - MSWiM , pp. 126-134, 2004 •  AP sum throughput collapses xxx, Orange

  18. Annex 2 What are the main problems? • In very high density deployment scenarios (large no. of APs) • saturation with high number of STAs per AP • channel reuse is almost impossible • co-channel interference strongly limits spatial capacity • problem is harder in environments without walls where propagation is very good • other interferences (adjacent-channel interference, non Wi-Fi interference) • inefficient cohabitation with tethering devices (soft APs) and Wi-Fi Direct devices • difficult to achieve consistent admission control, load balancing and fairness behavior to optimize networks even when APs deployed together CCA protection zone • Typical scenario: • e.g. user density: 0.5 user/m² • cellular-like APs planning (with frequency reuse pattern) • AP density: 6400 AP/km² (distance between neighboring APs: 14m) Channel reuse 3 xxx, Orange

  19. Annex 2 What are the main problems? • In outdoor deployment scenarios • delay spread issue in typical outdoor ITU UMI channels • links can hardly be maintained • in non-LOS, even with good received SNR (with Rx power below -70/75 dBm) • uplink is the limiting factor - especially with smartphones (10-12dBm Tx power) • high levels of interference • home gateways leaking outdoors • minimum of 15-20 uncoordinated APs per channel (2.4GHz) under coverage(with rather small Rx power – but sufficient to cause interference, especially at BSS-edge) • saturation with a high number of STAs per AP • Typical scenario: • Pico-cell/AP deployment • 50 to 60 APs per km²: inter-AP distance of 150-200m • 500Mbps on 20000m² (80m-radius BSS) xxx, Orange

More Related