1 / 11

Single User MCS Proposal

Single User MCS Proposal. Date: 2010-05-16. Authors:. Slide 1. Outline. Coding and modulation levels using SNR vs. mutual information calculation PER vs. SNR simulation results Proposed MCS Straw poll. 11n MCS + 256 QAM (R=3/4 and 5/6).

fia
Download Presentation

Single User MCS Proposal

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. Single User MCS Proposal Date: 2010-05-16 Authors: Slide 1 Vinko Erceg et al.

  2. Outline • Coding and modulation levels using SNR vs. mutual information calculation • PER vs. SNR simulation results • Proposed MCS • Straw poll Vinko Erceg et al.

  3. 11n MCS + 256 QAM (R=3/4 and 5/6) • MI vs. SNR for different modulation/coding levels • Modulation bits = [ 1 2 2 4 4 6 6 6 8 8 ] • Rate = [1/2 1/2 3/4 1/2 3/4 2/3 3/4 5/6 3/4 5/6 ] Vinko Erceg et al.

  4. Simulation Parameters • Channel Model D • 80 MHz Bandwidth • 26 columns in row column interleaver • Spatial stream frequency rotation with NROT = 58 • BCC encoding with single encoder • MMSE receiver • 1x1 – 4x4 antenna configurations • Number of spatial streams equals number of antennas • 40 ppm center frequency offset • Phase noise at -41 dBc • Uncorrelated at TX • Correlated at RX • 1000 packets per SNR point Vinko Erceg et al.

  5. 256 QAM Code Rate Comparison Nss=1 Vinko Erceg et al.

  6. 256 QAM Code Rate Comparison Nss=2 Vinko Erceg et al.

  7. 256 QAM Code Rate Comparison Nss=3 Vinko Erceg et al.

  8. 256 QAM Code Rate Comparison Nss=4 Vinko Erceg et al.

  9. Proposed .11ac MCS (0-9) Vinko Erceg et al.

  10. Straw Poll Vinko Erceg et al.

  11. Straw Poll #1 • Do you support adding the following item into the specification framework document, 11-09/0992? • R3.3.F: The draft specification shall include SU MCS set consisting of modulation and coding levels as defined in Table on slide 9. • Yes: • No: • Abs: Vinko Erceg et al.

More Related