1 / 6

Comment resolution #79

Comment resolution #79. Authors:. Date: 2009, November 17. Abstract. Comment 79 (Joe Epstein) opened up a discussion on Off Channel Operation and possible restrictions with respect to Enterprise networks. This submission is to clarify the situation for residential networks. Comment.

marandar
Download Presentation

Comment resolution #79

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. Comment resolution #79 Authors: Date: 2009, November 17 Graham Smith, DSP Group

  2. Abstract • Comment 79 (Joe Epstein) opened up a discussion on Off Channel Operation and possible restrictions with respect to Enterprise networks. This submission is to clarify the situation for residential networks. Graham Smith, DSP Group

  3. Comment CID 79 – “Channel switch messages allow the TDLS stations to circumvent admission control requirements on channels with only AC-mandatory APs, by associating one another channel and then switching to it. The draft's authors do recognize the problem when TDLS clients remain on the same channel, but the same consideration should be given to other channels. In fact, a more general problem is that TDLS clients can occupy channels by their own volition that are in conflict with well-managed large-scale networks” Graham Smith, DSP Group

  4. Points arising from Comment If STAs choose to go ‘off channel’, then the following points would appear to be relevant • They should be moving for ‘good’ reasons • Better bandwidth is probably #1 reason • 2.4 and 5GHz operation is related to this • 11n • They should not cause the new channel to become potentially congested - not good for them, not good for others • Is there an AP already there? • Is it a QAP? • Are there ACM bits set? • Is HCCA present? • How much traffic already? • Basically, it has been assumed that the STAs would go to an unused channel – suggest we should encourage this? Graham Smith, DSP Group

  5. Enterprise/Residential • Enterprise is managed network(s) so some form of control seems to be useful. • It was proposed to add “No Off-Channel Operation” bit to AP • Could add other restrictions if enterprise experts desire • My concern is for Residential Networks • Big effort in 11aa to improve OBSS in residential, would like to discourage TDLS from making it worse – could wax lyrically on this for some time…but… • Suggest that wording is added that, at the least, suggests or recommends certain behavior when implementing “Off-Channel operation” Graham Smith, DSP Group

  6. Proposed Text (11.19.4.1) Off-Channel Operation It is recommended that TDLS non-AP STAs should in general only propose target channels that have no other traffic present. The presence of an AP or QAP on a certain channel should discourage a TDLS STA from proposing that channel as a target channel. Similarly the presence of set ACM bits on a certain channel should act as a discouragement to using that channel as a target channel. Note: would this have to go in an Annex as it is informative? To be in 11.19.4.1. does it need a different term than ‘recommended’? Graham Smith, DSP Group

More Related