Evaluation Methodology for 802.20 MBWA

1
(No Transcript)
2
802.20 Evaluation Criteria and Traffic Models
Status Update

• Farooq Khan
• IEEE 802.20 Interim Meeting
• Garden Grove, CA, USA 
• May 10-13, 2004

3
Evaluation Criteria Status

• Three conference calls (3/30, 4/13 and 4/27)
  since Orlando plenary.
• No activity on Traffic Modeling
• Evaluation criteria discussed the following item
• Simulation of various channel bandwidths
• Open issues not discussed
• Interface between link and system simulations,
  phased approach, application specific
  fairness/outage criteria and system simulation
  calibration.

4
Various channel bandwidths

• Two sets of spectrum allocations (over which the
  results are quoted) are used in the evaluation
• 2X5 MHz (total 10 MHz) and
• 2X15 MHz (total 30 MHz)
• The individual technology proposals may split the
  total spectrum into a given number of channels
  and specify their reuse factor and channel
  bandwidth. For example, if 2X15MHz is used as the
  spectrum allocation, then individual technology
  proposals can perform simulations for 2X5 MHz and
  then scale the simulation output data to 2X15MHz.

• Open issues
• Scaling of simulation data between 2X5 MHz and
  2X15 MHz spectrum allocation
• In order to accommodate cases where a proposal
  choose to simulate only a single spectrum
  allocation, a scaling between the 2 sets of
  spectrum allocation needs to be defined.
• Maximum total transmitter power, spectral mask
  and inter-channel interference requirement/modelin
  g
• Discussion on the two contributions dealing with
  the open issues to be continued from the last
  (4/27) conference call.

5
Phased Approach
The 802.20 evaluation will be structured with
multiple phases with each phase progressively
adding more complexity. The evaluation work for
each proposal may then be compared at each phase
to ensure a progressive "apples to apples"
comparison of proposals. This structured approach
will also provide performance metrics for the
physical and link layer performance early rather
than later in the evaluation process.   Phase 1
of the evaluation will consist of -
Items/issues/criteria that are required for the
calibration of simulations -
Items/issues/criteria that will draw out the
important differences between the various
proposals that cannot be otherwise
inferred.   The goals at the end of phase 1 are,
first, to achieve confidence that different
simulation models are calibrated and, two, to
present fundamental performance metrics for the
physical and link layer of various proposals.

• 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, and handoff modeling etc.

6
Link Budget

• Consensus on most of the link budget parameters
• Open issue Should maximum range (link budget) be
  used as a performance metric for proposal
  comparison or not?

7
Link budget parameters (1)
8
Link budget parameters (2)
9
Link-system Interface (LSI)

• The evaluation criteria agreed to specify an
  acceptable interface between link and system
  simulations.
• This is needed because the link and system
  simulations are performed separately (the
  simulation complexity would be very high if joint
  link and system simulations are required).
• Two potential solutions to the link-system
  interface
• Use actual link curves
• Specify an LSI methodology
• Contributions are invited on this topic

10
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

11
System simulation calibration

• 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 different simulations need to be
  calibrated.
• The group is open to proposals to nail down the
  calibration specifications.

12
Traffic Models

• Items requiring further consideration
• Specification of traffic mix
• Currently only a list of traffic types is
  provided, Issue of percentage of various traffic
  types in a mixed scenario is still open.
• Contributions invited on possible traffic mix
  scenarios.
• FTP traffic model
• Contributions invited on whether we need to
  modify the think time behavior in the existing
  FTP traffic model.
• VoIP Traffic and Wireless multi-party Gaming
  traffic models
• Overview of possible VoIP traffic models during
  the Vancouver Interim
• Contributions invited on possible VoIP and gaming
  traffic models to be used in system simulations.