120 likes | 131 Views
Explore the convergence of ETSI/IEEE/MMAC for Wireless LANs, addressing different views and establishing a global standardization. Discuss user, integrator, commercial, regulatory, and technical perspectives, as well as the approach and next steps.
E N D
One Global Standard forWireless LANs?ETSI/IEEE/MMAC Convergence July 2000 Lucent TechnologiesHarold Teunissen, Jan Kruyshteunissen@lucent.com Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Main Goals • To present the different views on Wireless LANs • To establish working group to study IEEE/ETSI/MMAC WLAN convergence Addresses • Global standardization for Wireless LANs Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Summary • User view • Integrator’s view • Commercial view • Regulatory view • Technical view • Convergence approach • How to proceed Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
User View • “Wireless LANs are great and 5 GHz stuff is promising but...“ • Three products? • IEEE, ETSI, MMAC • With similar services? • Will I need two cards? • “Please keep it simple!” Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Integrator’s view • I want one device for Wireless LAN functions • Integration is costly • maintenance and support of multiple devices is costly • I want smooth migration from 2.4 to 5 GHz • These standards guys should get their act together and cooperate with their peers worldwide • they did it with the PHY, why not with the MAC too?? Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Commercial view • One standard is preferable • No installed base yet • no loss of investment by users/customers • level playing field • Slugging it out in the market makes no sense • the resulting confusion will delay acceptance by the public as well by integrators • Convergence is a now or never opportunity Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Regulatory view • The World Radio Conference of 2003 will decide on 5 GHz spectrum for WLANs • Currently the US, Europe and Japan have different perspectives on the need for such spectrum • One standard, supported by the three major WLAN standards bodies will significantly improve the spectrum case and improve the prospects for WRC 2003 - as well as in the ITU-R preparation processes Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
History • 802.11 • medium data rates, • “wireless Ethernet” • different PHY solutions • HIPERLAN/2 • high data rates • “wireless ATM with QoS” • single PHY • MMAC considers both approaches Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Major technical differences Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Essential Requirements • Global usability • Broad range of data rates • Robustness in contention mode • Good QoS in centralized mode • Support direct mode with QoS • QoS and Security that ties in with the IETF Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
Convergence approach • The aim should be a single implementation that supports both best effort and other QoS modes • Take the best of each standard but assure backward compatibility with current installed base • Address inter-working with other networks - e.g. IMT 2000 • Assure compliance with regional radio regulations and support global spectrum effort • Common Technical and Conformance Test Specifications as basis for ISO standard Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies
How to proceed • Set up a small study group to analyze and propose a converged model • define a common set of requirements • main proponents of each standard: ETSI/IEEE/MMAC • Report at the next meeting (September 2000) • Direction • Technical Approach • Documentation structure • We have done it with the PHY - we can do it again! Harold Teunissen & Jan Kruys, Lucent Technologies