1 / 50

IMT-Advanced Opening Report

Name. Company. Address. Phone. email. bkraemer@. marvell. .com. Bruce Kraemer. Marvell. 5488 Marvell Ln. +1. -. 321. -. 4. 27. -. Santa Clara, CA. 4098. 95054. dengwer@nortel.com. Darwin Engwer. Nortel. 4655 Great America. +1. -. 408. -. 495. -. Networks.

smacdonald
Download Presentation

IMT-Advanced Opening Report

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. Name Company Address Phone email bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell 5488 Marvell Ln +1 - 321 - 4 27 - Santa Clara, CA 4098 95054 dengwer@nortel.com Darwin Engwer Nortel 4655 Great America +1 - 408 - 495 - Networks Pkwy, Santa Clara 2588 CA 95054 IMT-Advanced Opening Report Authors: Date: 2008-09-07 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  2. IEEE 802.11 IMT-Advanced – November 2008 • Technical portion of Circular Letter was completed in October 2008 (Korea) • October 7 workshop held WG11 Session Goals Review IMT-Advanced Status Review discussions held with WG21 in September Review WG18 plans for November Review concept of 802 contribution Discuss WG11 project options Present project recommendation to WG11 on Friday Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  3. September Goals for November • Bring IMT-A to a WG11 vote in November • Present viability evaluation of handover options TGu, ANDSF, 21 • Are these options or any other of sufficient value to 11? • Can any solution or project meet the IMT-A submission schedule requirements • Can 11 convince any RIT candidate that it would be a valuable SRIT partner • Or useful add-on? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  4. Discussion Overview 1. No substantive changes to IMT-U WP5D requirements • Korea activity tidied up incomplete documents 2. Best known option for WG11 is to continue engagement in support of WG16 • Encouragement from WG21 and WG16 to remain as a component in the solution 3. Refine WG11 work proposal Thursday • Participate in Tuesday discussion in WG18 • Continue dialog with WG21 & WG16 on best aproach • Consider WG11 project options (ad hoc or other ?) Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  5. WG21 Exchanges in Sept Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  6. WG18 Exchanges in Sept Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  7. Seoul Korea Workshop slide Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  8. Background Information Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  9. IMT Test Environments • Base coverage urban • – an urban macro-cellular environment targeting continuous • coverage for pedestrian up to fast vehicular users • Microcellular • – an urban micro-cellular environment with higher user density • focusing on pedestrian and slow vehicular users • Indoor • – an indoor environment targeting isolated cells at offices and/or • in hotspot based on stationary and pedestrian users • High speed • – macro cells environment with high speed vehicular and trains Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  10. IMT-ADV Schedule Korea Dubai Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  11. One Page Summary • Most of Circular letter components completed in Dubai • IMT.TECH contents/numbers finalized • IMT.EVAL contents/numbers finalized • Circular letter structure finalized • Work to perform final cleanup and formatting will continue in correspondence • Circular letter contents to be completed in WP5D Seoul, Korea October 8-15 • Technology Templates • Also Workshop Tuesday October 7 • WP5D Reports require approval by SG5 in November 10,11 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  12. Workshop Draft Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  13. July 802.11 Conclusion • Pursue the following topic: • How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m and seriously consider an SRIT submission? • Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. • Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. • Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of .21 mechanisms)? • Establish timing of decision/engineering input – deadline? • Establish Teleconferences to discuss topic prior to September • Include IMTA discussion topic in September 802.11 schedule Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  14. September 802.11 Discussion Premise • Pursue the following topic: • WG16 is primarily interested in and SRIT which would require WG11 to submit as an RIT • 802.11 indicted it was not interested in this path • Is there a useful “Next Best” approach • Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of .21 mechanisms)? • Need to generate .21 related slide by end of week? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  15. IMT-A/802.11/802.21 – Target Topic Sep 08 • Background • IMT-A SRIT including 802.11 solution requires use of 802.16 • 802.11 is not sufficiently interested in IMT-A to submit its technology as a RIT. • Without RIT status 802.11 would need to consider a less direct “partnership” relationship such as 802.21 as a media independent handover mechanism for non-802.16 technologies • Allows 802.11 to be compliant with 802.16 solution • Goals • Is the 802.21 mechanism currently usable for 802.11/802.16 handover in the context of IMT.TECH? • If not, exactly what needs to be added to 802.11, 802.16 or 802.21 to ensure adequate functionality? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  16. Questions #1 • 16 has mobile base stations and clients • 11 has mesh , 16 has relay stations that could be fixed or mobile • Can 21 handle all of these terminal types? • Can 21 help? Can 21 meet circular letter requirements? • How can 11 determine that it would meet minimum requirements to be accepted as an RIT? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  17. Question List #2 • 3GPP has ANDSF which parallels (or uses) 21. • If 11 could use ANDSF it would be a valuable option. • 21 might be used to increase the number of RIT interfaces especially if tied into the 3GPP RIT if connected through ANDSF • Is 21 specification mature enough to be used • Security is not developed • Insufficient liaisons/support from mobile SDOs e.g. 3GPP • 21 has good relationship with FMCA which suggests good link into wireline services with wired and wireless endpoints • Rather than 21, interface thru TGu might be more viable • Better metrics?: Lower latency, shorter schedule time, security • Is there anything missing from TGU? • Does TGu have adequate liaisons and SDO acceptance? • Is there any RIT that actually wants to partner with 11 in an SRIT? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  18. Goal for November • Bring to a WG11 vote in November • Evaluate viability of handover options TGu, ANDSF, 21 • Are these options or any other of sufficient value to 11? • Can any solution or project meet the IMT-A submission schedule requirements • Can 11 convince any RIT candidate that it would be a valuable SRIT partner • Or useful add-on Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  19. IMT-Advanced RIT development process Jan 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2008 Jul 2008 Jan 2009 Nov 2009 Jan 2009 Jul 2010 Jan 2009 Nov 2010 Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  20. Meeting Report Documents • Updated WP5D workplan was 5D-97 now TEMP-81 • Workshop draft plan 5D-185 • Activity Reports: • 53 Services Aspects • 96 Spectrum Aspects • 94 AH-Circular Letter • 81 & 53 + Attachment Chapter 2 - ITU-R WP 5D Structure and Workplan Meeting Report of Services WG Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  21. Submission Related Documents • 89 (Rev 1)Draft New Report on Requirements related to technical system performance for IMT-Advanced Radio interface(s) [IMT.TECH] • 90 (Rev 1)Draft New Report [Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-Advanced] • 87 (Rev 1)Compliance template for Services • 88 (Rev 1)Compliance template for technical performance • 93 (Rev 1)Technology description template • 78 (Rev 1)Draft new Report [IMT.REST] requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission templates for the development of IMT‑Advanced • 86 (Rev 1) IMT-ADV/2 – Submission and evaluation process and consensus building Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  22. Supported Test Environments • At least 1 required to propose candidate • At least 3 required to enter final standardization phase. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  23. Environments IMT-Advanced: Required Test Environments The critical decisions were made regarding the four “test environments”: • Indoor • Microcellular • Base coverage urban • High speed A radio interface technology (RIT) is required to satisfy the minimum performance requirements of a least one test environment, as specified by the proponent. A set of RITs (SRIT) needs to meet the requirements in at least two test environments. Later in the process, after evaluation of the proposals, only RITs or SRITs that meet the requirements in at least three test environments may proceed to be included in IMTAdvanced. It’s possible, for example, for a candidate RIT that meets only one test environment to proceed through the process and be evaluated. However, during the “consensus building” process, it would need to join with other RIT partners to form a SRIT covering at least three test environments in order to be included in the IMTAdvanced recommendation. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  24. Service Type Examples - Titles onlyFrom M.1822 • Messaging • Voice telephony • Push-to-talk/Push-to-X • High-quality video telephony • Video conference • Internet browsing • Interactive gaming • File transfer/download • Multimedia • e-Education • Consultation • Remote collaboration • Mobile commerce • Mobile broadcasting/multicasting • Machine-to-machine • Remote sensor • Remote bio-monitoring • Personal environment service • ITS-enabled services • Emergency calling • Public alerting • Number portability • Priority service • Lawful intercept • Location-based services Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  25. Candidate RIT Info • IMT.TECH highlights • IMT.EVAL highlights Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  26. IMT- Advanced IMT.TECH - Radio Requirements • 4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency - Table 1 • 4.2 Peak Spectral Efficiency • 15 b/s/Hz downlink • 6.75 b/s/Hz uplink • 4.3 Bandwidth • At least 3, Scalable up to and including 40 MHz • 4.4 Cell Edge User Spectral Efficiency – Table 2 • 4.5.1 Control Plane Latency • <100ms • 4.5.2 User Plane Latency • <10 ms • 4.6 Mobility up to 350 km/h - Table 3, Table 4 • 4.7 Handover – Table 5 • 4.8 VOIP Capacity – Table 6 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  27. IMT.TECH - 4.1 Cell Spectral Efficiency TABLE 1 Cell Spectral Efficiency Cell[1] spectral efficiency () is defined as the aggregate throughput of all users (the number of correctly received bits, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDUs delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time) divided by the channel bandwidth divided by the number of cells. The cell spectral efficiency is measured in b/s/Hz/cell.[1] A cell is equivalent to a sector, e.g. a 3-sector site has 3 cells. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  28. IMT.TECH - 4.4 Cell edge user spectral efficiency TABLE 2 Cell Edge User Spectral Efficiency The (normalized) user throughput is defined as the average user throughput (i.e., the number of correctly received bits by users, i.e. the number of bits contained in the SDU delivered to Layer 3, over a certain period of time, divided by the channel bandwidth and is measured in b/s/Hz. The cell edge user spectral efficiency is defined as 5% point of CDF of the normalized user throughput. Table 2 lists the cell edge user spectral efficiency requirements for various test environments. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  29. Peak Spectral Efficiency • IMT.TECH - 4.2 Peak spectral efficiency • The peak spectral efficiency is the highest theoretical data rate (normalised by bandwidth), which is the received data bits assuming error-free conditions assignable to a single mobile station, when all available radio resources for the corresponding link direction are utilised (that is excluding radio resources that are used for physical layer synchronisation, reference signals or pilots, guard bands and guard times). Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  30. IMT.TECH - 4.6 Mobility TABLE 3 Traffic Channel Link Data Rates Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  31. IMT.TECH - 4.6 Mobility TABLE 4 Mobility Classes The following classes of mobility are defined: – Stationary: 0 km/h – Pedestrian: > 0 km/h to 10 km/h – Vehicular: 10 to 120 km/h – High speed vehicular: 120 to 350 km/h Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  32. IMT.TECH - 4.7 Handover TABLE 5 Handover Interruption Times The handover interruption time is defined as the time duration during which a user terminal cannot exchange user plane packets with any base station. The handover interruption time includes the time required to execute any radio access network procedure, radio resource control signalling protocol, or other message exchanges between the user equipment and the radio access network, as applicable to the candidate RIT or SRIT. For the purposes of determining handover interruption time, interactions with the core network (i.e, network entities beyond the radio access network) are assumed to occur in zero time. It is also assumed that all necessary attributes of the target channel (that is, downlink synchronisation is achieved and uplink access procedures, if applicable, are successfully completed) are known at initiation of the handover from the serving channel to the target channel. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  33. IMT.TECH - 4.8 Voip Capacity TABLE 6 VoIP Capacity VoIP capacity was derived assuming a 12.2 kbps codec with a 50% activity factor such that the percentage of users in outage is less than 2% where a user is defined to have experienced a voice outage if less than 98% of the VoIP packets have been delivered successfully to the user within a one way radio access delay bound of 50 ms. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  34. IMT-ADV Evaluation (Temp 90) ITU-R IMT-ADV/3 Report Contents • Section 4 - ITU-R Reference documents • Section 5 - Describes the evaluation guidelines. • Section 6 - Lists the criteria chosen for evaluating the RITs. (Table 6-1) • Section 7 - Outlines the procedures and evaluation methodology for evaluating the criteria. • Section 8 - Defines the tests environments and selected deployment scenarios for evaluation. • Section 9 - Describes a channel model approach for the evaluation. • Section 10 - Channel Model Technical references. • Technical Guidance Annexes: • Annex 1: Test environments and reference channel models • Annex 2: Traffic models • Annex 3: Link budget template Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  35. IMT.EVAL Section 6 Characteristics for Evaluation Table 6-1 Evaluation methods and configurations Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  36. IMT.EVAL Section 8 Test Environments & Evaluation ConfigurationsTable 8-2 Baseline evaluation and configuration parameters Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  37. Other Info Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  38. Seoul, Korea Workshop • Objectives of the workshop • to provide common understanding of the process for IMT-Advanced standardization including technical requirements and evaluation guidelines. In particular, it will enable those not directly involved with the Circular Letter works to understand procedures better. • to observe current and future development aspects of IMT-Advanced Radio Interface technology by development parties • to exchange the views among possible proponents for consensus building of the possible candidate IMT-Advanced RITS • to share IMT-Advanced market and regulatory aspects for the introduction of the IMT-Advance • to promote more participation from developing countries into the WP5D activities, Ref: TEMP/82E coordinator Dr K. J. Wee Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  39. Seoul, Korea Workshop • Expected Agenda Topics of the workshop • Procedure and requirements of IMT-Advanced standardization • Possible Candidate IMT-Advanced RITs • Market and Regulatory Aspects • Needs of Developing Countries Ref: TEMP/82E coordinator Dr K. J. Wee Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  40. WP5D Meeting Schedule Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  41. SG5 Meeting Schedule Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  42. Study Group 5 Chairs Mr. C. GLASS Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5C US - Department of Commerce – NTIA Mr. A. JAMIESON Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Added Value Applications Ltd. New Zealand Mr. A. KLYUCHAREV Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Russian Federation - General Radio Frequency Centre Mme L. SOUSSI Vice-Présidente, Commission d'études 5 Tunisia - Agence Nationale des Fréquences Mr. L. SUN Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 China - Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Mr. K.-J. WEE Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Korea - Ministry of Information and Communication Radio Research Laboratory Mr. A. HASHIMOTO Chairman, Study Group 5 Japan - NTT DoCoMo, Inc. Wireless Technology Standardization Dept Mr. T.K.A. ALEGE Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Nigeria - Department of State Services Mr. A. CHANDRA Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 India - Ministry of Communications & IT Mr. J.M. COSTA Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5A Canada - Nortel Networks Mr. T. EWERS Vice-Chairman, Study Group 5 Acting Chairman, Working Party 5B Germany - Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  43. Correspondence • Following the Dubai meeting, three new mailing lists are being established: • rwp5d-bwa@itu.int - BWA sharing studies • rwp5d-workshop@itu.int - Preparation for the IMT-Advanced workshop to be held on 7 October in Seoul. • rwp5d-template@itu.int - Finalization of the Technology Description Template Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  44. IMT- Advanced Group Discussion/Suggestions • 2nd meeting Thursday 10:30am Capitol 7 Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  45. WG18 Meeting • Tuesday 10:30 am Quartz A • Joint WG discussion ITU-R WP5D • Outcome of Dubai meeting • Schedule & Milestones • Plans for correspondence group • Plans for Korea meeting (October 8-15) IEEE PLAN • Additional contributions to correspondence or meeting? • Plans for correspondence group • Plans for Korea meeting (October 8-15) Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  46. WG18 Notes • The meeting recommenced at 10:30 with the reports from the recent ITU-R meeting in Dubai. The first report port to IEEE 802.18 TAG on ITU-R 5D meeting #2. Was given by Roger Marks. • Roger went through the presentation and there were no questions. • Bruce Kraemer presented his report 802.11-08/0752r0, this document was posted into the Grouper Denver folder. The first part was on IMT-TECH. There were some questions raised but a commentator said that this document will be re-edited and revised at the upcoming October 5D meeting. • IMT-EVAL is continuing to be fleshed out and to date the presentation gives only the tip of the iceburg. There is a meeting soon that will do further work. There is a chart in the presentation giving the information on the future meeting dates. • The next steps will be for all interested 802 WGs to prepare edits and or new inputs for review and approval in a timely manner for the contribution deadline to next meeting, Korea October 8-15. • Some correspondence groups have been formed and should the IEEE take part in the process? • The individual groups should examine the steps and then decide their level of participation in the correspondence. Roger Marks indicated that 802.16 has a discussion group already in place as a correspondence group and that 802.11, and others, are welcome to join in. • Mike Lynch indicated that he would discuss this with 802.20 to see if they will join into the correspondence effort. • The Chair asked John Notor, the editor for the IMT output documents, to show the latest editing of the 802.18-08-0019-00- IMT802IMT Advanced Technology Proposal Process. • After presenting the document there was much discussion on how, in a timely manner, could the approval be obtained so that they could meet the contribution deadlines for the meetings. • Some brainstorming on how the documents can be made ready for approval by the EC recognizing that plenary meeting schedule makes an EC approval a very tight action. • The Chair thanked Roger and Bruce for their updates. John Notor will update document 18-08-0019r1 to 0019r2. Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  47. Next Steps • Continuation of activity in WG11, WG 18, WG16 Technical steps • Assessment of ability to meet baseline requirements • Submission to ITU-R • Operation in licensed bands • Cooperation with WG16 to construct SRIT submission Sanity checks • Sufficient interest in WG11 to support any of the above • Other, better alternatives • Connection to <6GHz PAR • Volunteers to participate/lead Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  48. What is the potential impact of IMT to 802.11?         Worst case scenario - future worldwide wireless system excludes 802.11         Best case scenario = IMT has zero impact to worldwide wireless system, i.e. IMT is a NOP Threat to 802.11 is likely zero,what is the opportunity • Should we stop this activity as it pertains to 802.11? • 802.16 might be a different story; seems to be more about operators staking out spectrum for the future. • Think of what we could do with more spectrum ... Extremely loose coupling between IMT and VHTL6         so 802.11 has no active effort working to meet the IMT requirements         we have essentially declared independence from IMT         was that intentional or accidental? would review of IMTA requirements influence goals? • VOIP Capacity • Could we suggest a 64 kbps codec to yield VOIP capacity more in line with 802.11 capabilities? • What is the value of 100MHz channels for VOIP? • The IMT effort seems to heavily voice centric - should that be expanded to other areas for system comparisons? e.g. video streams. • Final thoughts:Can we write a submission that would lead to a reduction in the VOIP capacity metrics? • Get some feedback from 802.16m on how they view these requirements (esp. the VOIP capacity number). Where does 802.16m need help from 802.11, if at all, to construct a more complete submission? • How might 802.11 meet the VOIP requirements as they currently stand? • How might 802.11 compare/ emphasize video delivery? • Should 802.11 continue for inclusion in core specifications or for awareness? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  49. Discussion • Data aspects of IMTA services/environments • 802.11 vs other RIT candidates especially 802.16m • Has the lack of recognition of 802.11 in IMT-2000 adversely affected market of 802.11. Looking backwards , there has been none. What about the future? • Would continuing engagement with IMTA help? • How valuable is access to IMTA spectrum to 802.11? • Best case is actually more bandwidth and a much bigger market opportunity. • There may be better ways to obtain spectrum such as 11y mechanisms for use of spectrum with non-exclusive licensing. • How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m? Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. How to achieve handoff (for example use of .21 mechanisms)? Timing of decision/engineering input – deadline? Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

  50. Conclusion • Pursue the following topic: • How quickly/best can we determine complementary fit with 16m and seriously consider an SRIT submission? • Explore possibility of joint 11/16 teleconference discussion. • Obtain/review 16m evaluation of IMT.TECH fit. • Explore how to achieve handoff (for example use of .21 mechanisms)? • Establish timing of decision/engineering input – deadline? • Establish Teleconferences to discuss topic prior to September • Include IMTA discussion topic in September 802.11 schedule Bruce Kraemer (Marvell); Darwin Engwer (Nortel)

More Related