1 / 11

Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh

This paper discusses the importance of standardizing interconnectivity for mesh networks, comparing deployment scenarios and proposing a flexible approach for the ESS Mesh Task Group. Various challenges and considerations in mesh networking are also explored.

shorne
Download Presentation

Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh

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. Interconnectivity Considerations and Usage Scenarios for ESS Mesh Narasimha Chari (chari@tropos.com) Malik Audeh (malik.audeh@tropos.com) Tropos Networks San Mateo, CA Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  2. Purpose • Tropos Networks is supportive of the ESS Mesh Standards effort • We highlight the need for standardized interconnectivity • We compare and contrast the characteristics and functional requirements for a range of deployment scenarios • We present some observations about the state of mesh networking and on the feasibility of standardizing a routing protocol • We suggest a possible approach for the ESS Mesh Task Group to take Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  3. The need for standardized interconnectivity • Multiple vendors of mesh networking products already exist in the marketplace, serving different customer needs and providing solutions for different deployment environments • Specification of a standard way for mesh products from different vendors to interconnect is likely to fuel large-scale adoption of such systems • Interconnectivity across domain boundaries is likely to emerge as an important market requirement Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  4. Multiple deployment scenarios • Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements • Directional vs omni-directional meshes • Indoor vs outdoor • Fixed vs mobile • Fixed wireless vs mobile access • Infrastructure vs peer-to-peer • Public safety vs ISP vs wireless carriers Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  5. Directional or sectored Relatively static connectivity Clock synchronization may be necessary Interference less likely Longer-range links Omnidirectional Neighbor list is highly dynamic Clock synchronization may not be required Interference avoidance is an important requirement Shorter-range links with multipath and fading Directional vs Omnidirectional Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  6. Indoor Focus on higher data rates Peer-to-peer applications Symmetric power levels Backhaul more widely distributed and available Backhauls typically equivalent in capacity Indoor propagation – walls, ceilings, desks Outdoor Lower data rates with higher rates used opportunistically Client-server applications Highly asymmetric links, power levels Backhaul sparsely distributed, availability is challenging Heterogeneous capacities on backhaul Outdoor propagation – trees, trucks, buildings Indoor vs Outdoor Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  7. Fixed Nodes are static Optimum route choices favor stability Client devices not part of the mesh Application traffic flows are client-to-wired-server Multiple backhaul sources present Mobile Nodes can be moving at high speeds Optimal route choices favor quick adaptation No distinction between clients and nodes Application traffic flows are peer-to-peer Backhaul may or may not be present Fixed/Infrastructure vs Mobile/Peer-to-Peer Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  8. Mesh networking - a rapidly evolving area • Active area of research and development • Academic research – MIT RoofNet, CMU Monarch • Commercial innovation • Startups – Tropos, Mesh Networks, BelAir, Strix, Firetide, PacketHop, others • Established companies – Nortel, Intel, Motorola • Standards bodies (IETF MANET: AODV, DSR, DSDV, etc.) • Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  9. Challenges with standardizing a routing protocol • Multiple deployment scenarios with differing functional requirements • No one-size-fits-all approach optimal across usage scenarios • Multiple approaches exist and more are being actively developed • Standardization of a single protocol may be premature and may stifle innovation in a rapidly evolving space Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  10. ESS Mesh – One Possibility • Common-denominator routing protocol • There is utility in standardizing a base protocol that addresses those requirements that are common across a set of usage scenarios • Likely to be suboptimal for a given usage scenario • The standard should provide flexibility to use custom protocols (out of the scope of the standard) to address the specific requirements of given usage scenarios Node-level interconnectivity Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

  11. Next Steps • Prioritize deployment scenarios or usage models • Develop functional requirements for a base set of usage scenarios • Architect the system to retain flexibility and extensibility to adopt custom protocols tailored for specific usage models Narasimha Chari, Malik Audeh - Tropos Networks

More Related