| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi, Laurent. While I agree that APs in general could choose to estimate DL throughput via whichever mechanisms they desire, I don’t think there was anything specific in the ESP (Estimated Service Parameters)/”Estimated Throughput”
to help APs estimated DL throughput. So, I am curious why the red sentence is needed. Regards, Youhan From: Cariou, Laurent [mailto:laurent.cariou@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi Mark, all, I think we can improve the current text by adding the following in red: The “Estimated Throughput” metric was introduced in IEEE 802.11 REVmc D6.0 [2] with the intent to allow external entities to make better quality traffic steering decisions and network selection decisions by being
able to predict the throughput that might be obtained through a link with an 802.11 STA [3].
The DL estimated throughput metric is defined to be computed by the STA, but could also be computed by the AP. Therefore, in principle, it can be applied to both the pre-activation and post-activation phases of LWA. The current
draft of P802.11mc D8.0 [4] specification does not provide any specification for “Estimated Throughput” accuracy or the variation across different implementations. Thanks Laurent From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
I am a bit confused by the draft reply. The request was for feedback on: 1) whether there are any accuracy requirements for “Estimated Throughput”, 2) “Estimated Throughput”'s variations across different implementations 3) feasibility of “Estimated Throughput” calculation by either STA or AP 4) if it would be feasible for IEEE to define “Estimated Throughput” accuracy requirements, if not already defined 5) other metrics which can also be useful for LWA operation The draft reply addresses 1 and 2. It does not address 3 or 4 and mentions but does not really address 5. Conversely, it goes into discussion of "pre-activation and post-activation phases of LWA" which does not in any obvious way relate to the 5 requests made. Incidentally, as regards 3 and 4, the ESTT mechanism was examined during TGm sponsor ballot comment resolution, and the conclusion was that it is not feasible to calculate in one direction (I forget which) because required information is missing, and the calculations in R.7 are inaccurate anyway. Thanks, Mark -- Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600 Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601 ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk From: Levy, Joseph S [mailto:Joseph.Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
An updated Draft Reply to Liaison from 3GPP RAN2 on Estimated Throughput (11-16-1384) is available:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-1510-01-AANI-reply-to-liaison-from-3gpp-ran2-on-estimated-throughput-11-16-1384.docx This document is the result of the drafting session held during the AANI SC EVE session 8 November 2016.
Please review and comment. The intent is to present this liaison for approval by the 802.11 WG.
Regards, Joseph Levy (InterDigital) IEEE 802.11 AANI SC Chair |