doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0 Submission Nov 2013 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm) Slide 1 Considerations on WFA feedback Date: 2013-11-14 Authors: N am e C om pany A ddress Phone em ail SimoneM erlin Qualcom m 5775 M orehouse D r San D iego, CA +18588451243 smerlin@ qti.qualcomm.com Rolfde V egt Qualcom m G w en Barriac Qualcom m 5775 M orehouse D r San D iego, CA gbarriac@ qti.qualcomm.com H em anth Sam path Qualcom m 5775 M orehouse D r San D iego, CA hsampath@ qti.qualcomm.com Thom asD erham O range LaurentCariou O range K iSeon Ryu LG E
Transcript
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Nov 2013
Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)Slide 1
Considerations on WFA feedback
Date: 2013-11-14
Authors:
Name Company Address Phone email Simone Merlin Qualcomm 5775 Morehouse Dr
Usage model / Scenario AP density STA density Management Propagation Homogeneity Traffic Profile
1e E-Education ~1/class? ~40-60/AP Managed Indoor FlatVideo; File transfer
Scenario 2 1/20m 200/AP Managed Indoor Flat TBD
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Mapping between Usage Models and Simulation Scenarios
Nov 2013
Slide 5 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
Usage model / Scenario AP density STA density Management Propagation Homogeneity Traffic Profile
4b Pico-cell street deployment 150-200m High Managed Outdoor Flat‘similar to cellular’
Scenario 4 (Scenario 4a)
130m 50-100 Managed Outdoor Flat TBD
Usage model / Scenario AP density STA density Management Propagation Homogeneity Traffic Profile
2b public transportation? (1 or 2 per cabin?)
100/Cabin Managed Indoor FlatOnboard entertainment
?
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Summary• Mapping
– 1b Airport / train station Scenario 3 – 1e E-education Scenario 2– 3a Dense apartment building Scenario 1– 4b Pico-cell street deployment Scenario 4– 2b Public transportation ??
• No good match with existing scenarios
• Is usage model 2b relevant for HEW, in the opinion of the SG?– Usage model 2b is essentially ‘single cell’, which is a departure from ‘Dense scenarios’ scope of
HEW • High density of STAs but likely just 1 or few APs
– Goal of simulation scenarios is to capture key issues, and for proof of solutions– If considered not relevant: our current simulation scenarios are enough– If considered relevant: we need to either add one more scenario, or fit it into an existing one
(preferred)• E.g. can it fit as a special case of Scenario 2 or 3?
Nov 2013
Slide 6 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Other Suggestions
Nov 2013
Slide 7 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Suggestions related to P2P projects
• WFA highlights multiple projects dealing with P2P communications1. Miracast™
2. Project A: efficient transport of USB payloads over Wi-Fi links
3. Project B: Device to Device Service discovery
• Simulation Scenarios doc includes P2P links and P2P traffic models in each scenario (parameters TBD)– P2P data traffic specifications (e.g. Video/Data) can cover 1 and 2
– P2P management traffic specifications can cover 3• Anything else needed in relation to Project B?
Nov 2013
Slide 8 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Suggestions related to traffic models
• Some of the suggestions refer to traffic modeling – 1a Stadium - Applications: append “Users are receiving VHD video feed highly compressed (100Mbps) in unicast, multicast and
broadcast modes” – 1e e-Education – Applications: append “Video streaming among teacher and students in unicast, multicast and broadcast modes”– 3a: Applications: append “Online game: a console in an apartment communicates with other consoles on internet at average 1.2 Mbps
UL (mixed packets up to 1200 bytes), 0.7 Mbps DL (small packets) critical latency requirement <10ms, packet loss <1%”– 3b Community WiFi: Traffic conditions: append “Some proportion of traffic on private SSID by home users, with certain per-service
QoE requirements.“ Use case: add “The AP owner wishes to protect QoE of traffic on private SSID from public traffic.”– 5b Usage in Stadium – Event Video Production Environment: modify “Outdoor stadium or event space equipped with 30 fixed and
mobile cameras. Multiple operators’ WLAN networks and/or adhoc networks of portable video camera devices.” • –Applications: modify: Professional usage: 3 3D UHD camera per AP lightly compressed (3.6Gbps). Consumer usage: lightly
compressed 4K UHD (600 Mbps)” • –Use Case: add: “Consumer usage: In the mean time, a user shoots high quality video or photos and transmits them over
WLAN in unicast, multicast or broadcast mode to other users” – 1b airports/stations, 1d shopping mall, 4a/b/c street hotspots : Proposal 2: HEW evaluation scenarios incorporate traffic models
representing mobile multimedia usages such as voice, video and real-time services – non-full-buffer with mixed packet sizes Typical rates: audio - 224kbps (G.722 stereo); video – 1500-4000kbps (H.264 FHD); <50ms latency, <1% packet loss
• Traffic models are currently under discussion: I suggest to interested parties to look into WFA feedback when formulating their traffic model proposals
Nov 2013
Slide 9 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Suggestions related to metrics I/II
• Specifically for scenarios 1b airports/stations, 1d shopping mall, 4a/b/c street hotspots, WFA feedback suggests to look at:
– Proposal 1: The following evaluation metrics are used for operator networks in these usage models, based on the CDF of per-user throughput (as is typical in 3GPP to highlight user-centric system performance):
• “cell edge” (5%), average (50%) and area (aggregate) throughputs
• “fairness” (inverse standard deviation of per-user throughputs)
• “outage rate” (% of users with links unable to achieve 5 Mbps throughput – a nominal minimum satisfactory rate)
– Proposal 3: Evaluation scenarios and metrics support possible technology proposals that may wish to demonstrate enhanced differentiation / prioritization of specific traffic flows / classes within a scenario
Nov 2013
Slide 10 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Suggestions related to metrics II/II
• From Evaluation Methodology document #1359: – Aggregate area throughput [bps/m2] for specified scenarios - this metric directly
relates to the average throughput per BSS and can be used to compare different deployment densities and heterogeneous deployments.
– Average per-STA throughput in all participating BSS
– 5% point in the throughput CDF curve – this metric measures cell edge performance• More information may be provided such as the entire CDF curve and MCS histogram [3]
– Time constraint throughput for delay sensitive applications
– Higher layer QoS metrics [4] are TBD
• Summary: metrics from EM Doc. are still under discussion, but they seem to cover WFA suggestions, except for ‘outage’
– 5% point of the CDF can be a measure of outage
– is it relevant for HEW to have a different definition of outage?
Nov 2013
Slide 11 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Suggestions related to overall goals
• WFA Proposal 4: Evaluation scenarios are designed to highlight the following aspects, which are considered important to improving performance of operator networks: OBSS between networks in multiple management entities (inc. hidden node problem)
– outdoor performance (inc. larger delay spreads, and probability of high MCS / MIMO order transmission)
– impact of management traffic (inc. from “idle STAs”) – probe request/response, RRM signaling – spectrally efficient coexistence with legacy devices – efficient use of the complete 2.4/5 GHz spectrum (inc. tradeoff between channel bandwidth and
OBSS contention)
• Simulation scenarios descriptions currently target above elements– Scenarios 4 is outdoor– Management traffic is included– Legacy devices are included optionally– 2.4 and 5GHz bands are assumed
Nov 2013
Slide 12 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Overall summary
• High priority Usage Models are covered by Simulation Scenarios, except for 2b Public Transportation
– Scenario 2b is essentially ‘single cell’
– Does the SG think this is a relevant use case to model?
– If yes, we may have to add a scenario, or adjust an existing one
• P2P applications are considered in each scenario, traffic models should capture WFA suggestions
• Traffic model proposals in various scenarios should consider WFA feedback
• Metrics from EM Doc are still TBD but seem in line with feedback– Does the SG think the ‘outage’ metric needs some special treatment?
• Simulation Scenarios already include elements that capture the suggested overall goals (outdoor, management overhead, legacy devices, operating bands)
• 11-13/1359 HEW-Evaluation-Methodology, Ron Porat (Broadcomm)
• 11-13/1443 Liaison from Wi-Fi Alliance on HEW Use Cases, Adrian Stephens
• 11-13/657 HEW SG usage models and requirements - Liaison with WFA, Laurent Cariou (Orange)
Nov 2013
Slide 14 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
APPENDIX
Nov 2013
Slide 15 Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Nov 2013
1b Airports and Train Stations - public access and cellular offload
The Next Generation Wi-Fi is expected to provide very high capacity for the people using bandwidth consuming applications in a dense deployed environments.
streaming video
Talking overvideo phone
VPN access to the office
Airports and train stations are typical places where many service providers install their APs and many passengers use WLAN services.
1b Airport/train stations - public access and cellular offload
Pre-ConditionsHigh density users access internet through multiple operators’ WLAN network. The venue owner possibly manages or controls multiple operators’ WLAN networks uniformly for the purpose of users’ QoS.
Environment The environment is very complex and may suffer severe interference.
Each AP serves 120 devices in a 200m2 area. The inter-AP distance is in the range of 15~20m. Single/multiple operators.
ApplicationsVideo based applications: TV, VOD, Video conference; VHD highly compressed (100 Mbps): 50% of users
VPN applications (20 Mbps): 10% of users
Game online; 100 Mbps, < 100 ms jitter; < 100 ms latency: 10% of users
Internet access: email, twitter, web surf, IM. (20 Mbps): 30% of users
Traffic ConditionsInterference between APs belonging to the same managed ESS due to very high density deployment.
Interference between APs belonging to different managed ESS due to the presence of multiple operators.
Interference with unmanaged networks (P2P)
Interference with cellular (e.g. TD-LTE) in in-device coexistence scenario (e.g. User equipments running Wi-Fi and TD-LTE at the same time.)
Use CaseTravelers are using the network to surf websites, watch movies, play online games and access cloud services.
2b Public Transportation - public access and cellular offload
Pre-Conditions: High density users have operational WLAN network for Internet access during very crowded time such as commuting time. User can access the onboard entertainment system (internal) and Internet (external).
Environment: Indoor open area with many obstacles most of which are human body blockings. Each cabin has separate WLAN connectivity for subway cabin. For bus, there is a single cabin. People can be slowly moving in the cabin.
Application: Onboard entertainment: Broadcast and local VoD services, Internet Access, Gaming, public safety: Local VoD services, monitoring: 50 x 20 Mbps = 1.0 G
25 users listening to HD audio
25 users doing interactive gaming ; 25 x 20 Mbps = 0.5 Gbps, <100 ms jitter and <100 ms latency
Traffic Conditionsinterference with unmanaged networks such as tethering (personal Soft-AP such as mobile router)
Potential interference from traffic in the surrounding outdoor environment for public transports in cities.
Use Case100 passengers in one cabin (10 m x 3m).
Passengers access via WLAN the onboard the entertainment system for video display, audio, and interactive gaming activities.
Passengers also access the Internet via the WLAN.
Laurent Cariou (Orange)Simone Merlin (Qualcomm)
doc.: IEEE 802.11-13/1456r0
Submission
Nov 2013
3a Dense apartment building – private access and cellular offload
Pre-ConditionsEach apartment has Wi-Fi network deployed to access internet and cloud services. In each apartment up to 3 users stream concurrently video content from the network and up to 50% of the networks are active.
At the same time each of the active Wi-Fi networks is used by 2 users for web browsing
Environment Building with 100 apartments. One AP in each apartment of 10mx10m randomly positioned. 5 STA per AP randomly positioned in the apartment.
ApplicationsCloud based applications supporting video streaming with 8k resolution.
Video throughput assumptions are: ~112Mbps per STA, delay is < 200ms, 1.0E-3 PER. Online gameCloud-based application as big storage
Web browsing assumptions for Social Networking are: ~20Mbps, PER 1e-3, delay<50ms
150 active video users and 100 active web browsing users in the building.
Traffic ConditionsStrong interference from unmanaged overlapping networks (neighboring apartments, and outdoor Wi-Fi network).
Multiple video display are operational simultaneously.
Interference with Zigbee, Bluetooth.
Use CaseUsers watch the high quality video contents coming from the Internet or video contents stored in their PVR with VHD Display. There may be another video streams to be recorded in the Blu-ray deck.
People enjoy playing online games or local game machine with two or more people.
Other users are just accessing the Internet for email access, web browsing, etc.
4b Pico-cell street deployment - public access and cellular offloadPre-ConditionsStreet deployment for cellular offload purpose (potentially co-location with cellular network small cells) or for city neighborhood blanket coverage.
Environment Most outdoor street deployments will be made with placement below rooftop (3 - 10m: typical location of cellular network pico cells): lamp poles, hanged on cables, stuck to walls. It will be mostly side coverage (omni or directional).
Inter-AP distance between 150 and 200 meters for blanket coverage. Shorter distance in higher density zones.
ApplicationsUser traffic mix is similar to cellular traffic mix.
Mix of VOIP, Best effort FTP, Internet access, Web video, teleconferencing.
Throughput assumption: longtime/stable throughput per user >= 20 Mbps
Real-time Video Analytics & Augmented Reality
User Generated Content (UGC) Upload & Sharing with a higher proportion in public event zones.
Traffic ConditionsInterference between APs belonging to the same managed ESS due to very high density deployment.
Interference between APs belonging to different managed ESS due to the presence of multiple operators.
Interference with stand-alone private APs from surrounding buildings. (at 2.4GHz, between 15 to 20 APs in all 3 channels (beacons already occupy 20% of channel)
Interference with unmanaged networks (P2P and private mobile APs such as mobile routers and tethering smartphones)
Interference with 2G-3G-LTE, especially in case of co-site deployments, and in-device coexistence scenario.
Use CaseUsers connect to hotspot, perform a mixture of applications, including VOIP calls, FTP, Internet access, video conference.
Some users are in mobility (walking down the street).
Usage Model AP density STA density Management Propagation HomogeneityTraffic[tentative]
Mapping
1
high density of APs and high density of STAs per AP
a Stadium12-20m ~50/AP Managed Outdoor/Indoor Flat Mobile Outdoor/Indoor
Hotspot
b airport/train stations15-20m <120/AP Managed Outdoor? Flat Mobile Outdoor
Hotspot
c exhibition hall5-10m 100/AP Managed Indoor Flat Mobile/
EnterpriseEnterprise or Indoor Hotspot
d shopping malls~High ~High Managed Indoor Flat Mobile Indoor Hotspot
e E-Education ~1/class? ~40-60/AP Managed Indoor Flat Enterprise Enterprise
fMulti-media Mesh backhaul
50-200m? 1-10/AP Managed Indoor/Outdoor?
? Enterprise ?
2high density of STAs – Indoor
a dense wireless office <50m 20-30/AP Managed Indoor Flat Enterprise Enterpriseb public transportation ? High Managed Indoor Flat Mobile ?c lecture hall < 200m High Managed Indoor Flat Enterprise? Enterprise?
dManufacturing Floor Automation
50m 250/AP Managed Indoor Flat ? Enterprise?
3
high density of APs (low/medium density of STAs per AP) – Indoor
a dense apartment building 10m 5/AP Unmanaged Indoor Flat Home Residential
b Community Wi-Fi
(20/channel)
Low Unmanaged Indoor/outdoor Flat Home + Mobile
Outdoor Large BSS+Residential
4
high density of APs and high density of STAs per AP – Outdoor
a Super dense urban Street10-20m 100-200/AP Managed Outdoor Flat Mobile Outdoor
Hotspot
b Pico-cell street deployment150-200m High Managed Outdoor Flat Mobile Outdoor Large
