1 / 20

Mechanisms for Transmission Suppression in 802.11

Mechanisms for Transmission Suppression in 802.11. Author: Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6791 mjsherman@att.com. Date: Jan 18, 2001. Problem addressed. 802.11e is developing mechanisms to support QoS

ruby
Download Presentation

Mechanisms for Transmission Suppression in 802.11

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. Mechanisms for Transmission Suppression in 802.11 Author: Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6791 mjsherman@att.com Date: Jan 18, 2001 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  2. Problem addressed • 802.11e is developing mechanisms to support QoS • Many situations when the ability to cause groups of STA to cease transmissions would be useful • Accommodate TBTT for Beacon transmission • Overlapped BSS Mitigation • Accommodate protocol enhancements • HCF / Token passing schemes, Other • Would like technique applied to also work with Legacy STA (LSTA) • Would like ability to differentiate between Legacy and groups of 802.11e STA (ESTA) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  3. Approach to Problem • Develop method to Set NAV in a STA group • Develop method to Reset NAV in a STA group • Use existing frame formats as much as possible • Enhances compatibility with LSTA Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  4. Approach to Problem (Cont.) • Played with interpretation of RTS, CTS, and CF-End messages • Had ESTA use Addresses for qualifiers and signaling • Apply Duration field based on contents of Addresses • Based signaling / qualifiers on Address types • Unicast • Multicast • Broadcast • Chose mappings that are consistent with current usage of address fields in standard Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  5. Suggested ECTS Mechanisms • Enhance CTS (ECTS) usage to allow setting Duration/ID field to any valid Duration value • Broadens context for Duration field use • Enhance CTS usage to allow any valid address in RA field • LSTA will always set NAV for duration indicated • Rules for ESTA will vary (See Chart) • Allow use of PIFS with this message for preferential media access (EAP only) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  6. Map of New Capabilities (CTS) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  7. Suggested ERTS Mechanisms • Enhance RTS (ERTS) usage to allow setting Duration/ID field to any valid Duration • Broadens context for Duration field use • Enhance RTS usage to allow any valid address in RA and TA fields • LSTA will always set NAV for duration indicated • Rules for ESTA will vary (See Chart) • Allow use of PIFS with this message for preferential media access (EAP only) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  8. Map of New Capabilities (RTS) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  9. Suggested ECF-End Mechanisms • Enhance CF-End (ECF-End) usage to allow any valid address in RA and TA fields • Allow use of ECF-End outside CFP • LSTA always reset NAV when received • Rules for ESTA will vary (See Chart) • Allow use of PIFS with this message for preferential media access (EAP only) • Could also use “piggybacked” Ack Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  10. Map of New Capabilities (CF-End) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  11. What Enhancements Accomplish • If no LSTA • Can set / reset NAV independently in any group of ESTA • Some ability to control remote groups via RTS/CTS relay • Since can have “Group” of one, can set for single ESTA as well • If LSTA are present • Must treat as special case • Sometimes part of addressed group, Sometimes not Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  12. A Special Case • May want to set NAV in ESTA Group but not LSTA • Use 2 message sequence • Send ECTS to Group • Group sets NAV • LSTA set NAV • Send ECF-End from broadcast • LSTA reset NAV • No ESTA reset NAV Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  13. Comments on Mechanisms • No new frame formats required • Fully backward-compatible • Tables presented are suggestions • Meant to show concept • Open to other usage mappings • Open to partial acceptance of mappings • Implementation of mechanisms could be optional • Some mapping mandatory in ESTA to be of use • Duration field in other frame types could also be used to reserve channel • RTS/CTS seemed most appropriate Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  14. Comments specific to Overlapped BSS • Goal of new mappings is to allow suppression of groups of terminals in overlap • Technique assumes ability exists to assign terminals to groups • Where is such a technique defined? • Are modifications required to support it? • Best if applied with ability to solicit interference info from STA • Which other STA are heard at what power level • What Management frame should be used for report? • Are new elements needed? Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  15. Other Mechanisms for Consideration • Allow side-traffic during CFP • Allows relay of “Proxy Beacon” and other messages when Disjoint CFPs exist between adjacent BSSs • Define ability of STA to relay messages • Already need for Proxy Beacon • Allow non-uniform Fragmentation during CFP • More efficient use of TxOPs Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  16. Example Applications of New Mechanisms Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  17. Example ECTS UsageReduction of TBTT Overrun* RA=Broadcast Legacy Tx Suppressed Beacon TxN ECTS B Tx1 Tx2 B ETx TBTT TBTT PIFS NAV Set by Legacy STA * Assumes ESTA knows not to overrun TBTT ETx is transmission by ESTA Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  18. Example ERTS Usage*Unscheduled CFP TA=Don’t Care RA=Broadcast Unsolicited Tx Suppressed Unscheduled CFP shortened by CF-End Prior Tx ERTS CF_Poll CF_Ack CF_End PIFS NAV Set by all STA NAV Reset by all STA * HFC may be better option. This is just a convenient example. Also shows use of CF_END to reset NAV and shorten Tx Suppression time Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  19. Example UsageHidden STA Suppression* TA=Group A RA=RSTA Beacon RA=Group A CFP B ERTS ECTS CF_Poll TBTT Hidden Node Suppressed * Assumes Hidden ESTA (HSTA) is in known group to begin with (Group A) Assume group same as for Relay ESTA (RSTA) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  20. TA=Don’t Care RA=Broadcast RA=Group B Unscheduled CFP BSS1 Silent ERTS CF-Poll CF-End ECTS Tx Tx CF-End BSS2 Silent Unscheduled CFP ECTS Tx Tx CF-End ERTS CF-Poll CF-End RA=Group A TA=Don’t Care RA=Broadcast Example Usage - BSS Silent* BSS1 BSS2 * Assume ESTA that interfere from BSS2 to BSS1 are in group A Assume ESTA that interfere from BSS1 to BSS2 are in group B Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

More Related