Project
IEEE 802.20 Working Group on Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
<http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/>
Title
Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models Status Update
Date
Submitted
2004-11-11
Source(s)
Farooq Khan
1301 E Lookout Dr.
Richardson, TX 75082
Re:
802.20 Call for Contributions: Session # 11 – November 15-19, 2004
[2004-12-07 (r1)]
Voice: +1 972 761 7929
Fax: +1 972 761 7909
Email: [email protected]
[Updated after Conference call on December 7, 2004]
Abstract
This contribution provides update of 802.20 evaluation criteria group activities.
Purpose
Review
Release
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802.20 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for
discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this
document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right
to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this
contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in
the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution;
and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE
Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made
public by IEEE 802.20.
Patent
Policy
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3> and in Understanding
Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html>.
Notice
802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic
Models Status Update
Updated per Conference call Dec. 7, 2004
By Anna Tee
Farooq Khan
IEEE 802.20 Plenary Meeting
San Antonio, Texas, USA
November 15-19, 2004
All changes show in Green.
Evaluation Criteria Status*
•
Four conference calls since September Interim:
–
–
–
–
•
Major open issues:
–
–
–
–
•
September 28, 2004: Phased Approach
October 12, 2004: Evaluation Criteria Document Review
October 26, 2004: Document Review + Channel Models
November 9, 2004: Document Review + Simulation Calibration
VoIP (and wireless multi-party Gaming [04/86]) Traffic model
System simulation calibration [04/83r1]
Channel [04/82r1] and Traffic mix
Details of Phase 2 simulations [04/85r1]
Updated 802.20 Evaluation Criteria Version 12 now available:
–
–
–
Included Phased Approach Table
Updates based on the document review over the conference calls
Number of occurrences of the word “TBD” in the document: 22
(18 of them located in Phased (2) approach Table)
*Reference to related IEEE 802.20 contributions
included in [.]
-3-
Traffic Models
• Specification of traffic mix
– Phase 1 use full buffers model
– Traffic mix scenarios need to be defined for Phase 2 of the
simulations
• VoIP Traffic Model
– Need to finalize on VoIP source traffic model
• Contributions invited on Wireless multi-party Gaming traffic
models [04/86]
• Video Streaming Model
– Need to determine if video streaming data rate need to be
different than 32Kb/s currently assumed. [04/88]
-4-
Phase 2 Simulations Details
[04/85r1]
• The details of phase 1 are currently being discussed in the
evaluation criteria:
– Agreed to use 19-cells 3-sector wrap-around configuration, Full
buffers (hungry) traffic, simulation calibration, link-system
interface etc.
– Current Recommendation is to use suburban macro, 3 Km/h
pedestrian B and 120Km/h Vehicular B channel models.
•
The issues that need further consideration:
– Full-duplex simulation, traffic mix, channel mix, control
signaling and handoff modeling etc.
-5-
Link Budget Criteria
• Consensus on most of the link budget parameters
• Open issue: Should maximum range (link budget) or
equivalently maximum pathloss be used as a performance
metric for proposal comparison or not? [04/64r4]
– Clarification text on the section for link budget required so that
technology proponents will know how to provide the data
requested (How the data will be used will be covered in the
Technology Selection Process document.)
– Performance metrics specified in section 13 can refer to the link
budget template
-6-
Application specific criteria
In the evaluation of spectral efficiency and in order to make a fair comparison of
different proposals, it is important that all mobile users be provided with a
minimal level of throughput. The fairness for best effort traffic (HTTP, FTP and full
buffers) is evaluated by determining the normalized cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the user throughput, which meets a predetermined function. For
applications other than best effort, application specific outage criteria are defined.
The proposals will also provide additional fairness metrics. The details of the
additional fairness metrics are TBD (see for example IEEE C802.20-04/05).
• A fairness criteria is defined for the best effort data
traffic:
– application specific outage and QoS (FER, delay etc.)
criteria need to be defined for other applications!
• Contributions are also invited on additional fairness
metrics
– For other applications such as VoIP, gaming or video
streaming, what would be the criteria in each case to ensure
the spectral efficiency is computed based on system
resources being shared fairly amongst the simulated users
in the same sector?
– Contributions are required if additional metrics are to be
adopted
-7-
System simulation calibration
[04/83r1]
• The evaluation criteria would specify a system
simulation calibration process.
– Calibration would be done as part of phase 1 of
simulations
• However, it is not clear, at this stage, to what level of
detail simulations need to be calibrated.
• The group discussed a contribution on this issue over
the November 9, 2004 conference call:
– Further discussions planned during the Plenary meeting
-8-
Channel Models Mix
[04/82r1]
• Decided to address the Channel models mix issue in
evaluation criteria.
– Need to decide if Channel Models mix is necessary for
evaluation
– If it is necessary, what would be the appropriate channel models
mix?
• Further discussions planned based on an open contribution
discussed over the November 8, 2004 channel models CG
call.
-9-