Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution



Marianna

 

What I mean is that that if we define a 20 Mhz channel bandwidth as being 20 MHz uplink and 20 Mhz downlink for FDD and 40 MHz with an arbitrary UL/DL split for TDD anyone that wishes to deploy that needs 40MHz allocated to that deployment. I am not trying to get deeper than that, and I am not trying to address what allocation policy should be.

 

Mark

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marianna Goldhammer [mailto:marianna.goldhammer@alvarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:52 AM
To: Klerer Mark; stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution

 

Mark,

 

You speak in the same time about channel bandwidth and spectrum allocation, which are generally different things.

 

Can you clarify ? What should be the min. spectrum allocation with 40MHz channel bandwidth?

 

 

Marianna

-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer Mark [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:18 PM
To: stds-80220-requirements@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-requirements: comments on rev5 - Channel bandwidth resolution

Proposal for a Way Forward:

 

It is becoming obvious that there are constituencies for both the 1.25 - 5 MHz channel bandwidth range and for the channel bandwidth range of 10-20 MHz. I would, therefore, like to propose that we accommodate both ranges (see below).

 

I would, first like to point out that when we were speaking about 1.25 and 5 MHz that is for paired FDD spectrum, i.e. the total bandwidth a service provider will need is 2 x 1.25 and 2 x 5 MHz (I.E. 2.5 and 10MHz allocations). For TDD systems that translate to 2.5 and 10 MHz unpaired spectrum, respectively. (This is made clear in a footnote to the Table in item 18 of the PAR { 802.20 - PD-02 } for the 1.25 MHz system - the PAR table does not show the 5 MHz parameters). I propose we stick with this convention of referring to bandwidth of the channel in this way. This will imply that when we speak about 10 MHz and 20 MHz channel bandwidth we are speaking about allocations of 20 and 40 MHz, respectively (with TDD free to split this bandwidth asymmetrically).

 

I would like to propose that we agree to the following:

1.    Accommodate channel bandwidths of 1.25, 5, 10 and 20 MHz (i.e. systems requiring allocation of 2.5, 5, 20 and 40 MHz). 

2.    The individual systems are allowed to optimize their PHY and MAC designs for bandwidth and duplexing scheme.

3.    The Requirements document either includes a separate section or we create an Addendum that addresses requirements for the 10 and 20 MHz systems. [I propose that we need to get some closure on the issues raised on the conference call and prior e-mails as to, e.g. whether we envision this to be used only for capacity increase (and CAPEX reduction - as noted by Jim) or whether we (also) envision the introduction of new services that require more bandwidth (as indicated by David McGinnis) so that there is some guidance for the design of these systems].

 

I believe the above would allow us to move forward on a common basis creating a specification (or specifications) that will satisfy the various international needs for now and the foreseeable future.

 

With the understanding that the 20MHz design will require an allocation of 40 MHz I would be interested in opinions whether we already need to address this at this time.

 

Regards,

 

Mark Klerer



This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************

This mail was sent via mail.alvarion.com

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************