1 / 10

Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP

Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP. Sunghyun Choi 1 , Javier del Prado 1 , Atul Garg 1 , Maarten Hoeben 3 , Stefan Mangold 2 , Sai Shankar 1 , and Menzo Wentink 3 Philips 1 , Aachen University 2 , and Intersil 3 sunghyun.choi@philips.com and mwentink@intersil.com. Problem Statement.

linore
Download Presentation

Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP

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. Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun Choi1, Javier del Prado1, Atul Garg1, Maarten Hoeben3, Stefan Mangold2, Sai Shankar1, and Menzo Wentink3 Philips1, Aachen University2, and Intersil3 sunghyun.choi@philips.com and mwentink@intersil.com S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  2. Problem Statement • Per 802.11e/D1.3, it is clear that one cannot have multiple frame (i.e., MSDU) exchanges during a non-polled TXOP (or EDCF TXOP). • 802.11e/D1.2 was not very clear in that; see 01/534 for related discussion. • However, allowing the multiple frame exchanges (or EDCF TXOP Bursting) looks very attractive. • See the next for the details. S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  3. Advantages of EDCF TXOP Bursting • Will reduce network overhead • Without bursting available, an ESTA must backoff after each MSDU transmission • Will increase bandwidth fairness among the same priority queues, virtually independent from the frame sizes. • Without bursting available, the ESTA with larger MSDUs will use the channel more • Should not affect the rest of HCF as the EDCF TXOP is limited by “CP TXOP Limit” in QoS Parameter Set element anyway. S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  4. Proposed EDCF TXOP Bursting • During an EDCF TXOP, ESTA may transmit multiple frames (i.e., MSDUs) from the same queue (i.e., from the same Access Category per 01/565r0). • Once there is a transmission failure, the EDCF TXOP ends, and the ESTA goes into backoff. • Without a transmission failure, the ESTA goes to backoff after the final frame exchange. S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  5. Duration and NAV Rules • EDCF bursting uses Duration rules similar to fragment bursting • Each MPDU protects up to the next frame exchange via Duration. S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  6. EDCF TXOP Limit per AC • Replace the “CP TXOP Limit” in QoS Parameter Set element with four “CP TXOP Limit [AC]’s” • One per Access Category (AC) (ref. 01/565r0) • Desirable along with the EDCF TXOP bursting • Will enable bursting size tuning per AC depending on the traffic types • Can achieve weighted bandwidth sharing among ACs S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  7. Normative Text Changes from D1.3 • Revise 9.10.2.2 as follows: • Title should read “Duration values within TXOPs” • “TXOP” should be replaced by “polled TXOP” • Add the following paragraph at the end of 9.10.2.2: “Each frame during a TXOP obtained by winning EDCF contention contains duration information that defines the duration until the end of the next frame exchange sequence. Duration information from each frame shall be used to update the NAV to indicate busy until the end of the next frame exchange sequence.” • Replace the first sentence of 9.10.3 with: • “A TXOP obtained by winning EDCF contention may be used to send one or more frame exchange sequences of the frames of the same AC with total medium occupancy time not exceeding CP TXOP limit [AC] from the QoS parameter set element in the beacon.” S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  8. Normative Text Changes from D1.3 • In Clause 7.3.2.14: • Replace the third paragraph with: “The CP TXOP limits [AC] field contains 8 octects which specify 4 time limits on TXOPs that are not granted by QoS (+)CF-Polls, for access categories 0 through 3, respectively. Each CP TXOP limit is 2 octets in length and contains the unsigned integer number of 16-microsecond periods. All non-polled WSTA TXOPs during the CP last no longer than the period specified by the corresponding CP TXOP limit value. A CP TXOP limit [AC] value of 0 indicates that each non-polled TXOP of access category AC during the CP can be used to transmit a single MPDU at any rate in the operational rate set of the QBSS. CP TXOP Limit [AC] values update the dot11CPTXOPLimit[AC] MIB values when received by a QSTA.” S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  9. Normative Text Changes from D1.3 • In Clause 7.3.2.14 and Figure 42.6: • Replace “CP TXOP Limit” with “CP TXOP Limits,” “CP TXOP Limit [AC],” or “CP TXOP Limit [0] … CP TXOP Limit [3]” depending on the context • In Annex D: • Replace “dot11CPTXOPLimit” with “dot11CPTXOPLimit[0…3] S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

  10. Motion • Move to empower the TGe editor to revise the non-polled TXOP usage by incorporating normative text changes on slides 7 - 9 of document 01/566r1, and by changing wording on non-polled TXOP usage elsewhere in the TGe draft as may be necessary to make the revised TGe draft consistent with the above changes. S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil

More Related