Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Request for further discussion on SP198 non-prima

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

I would also like to add that 20+ year old WLAN channel access assuming primary being idle is very inefficient mechanism, especially for wide BWs such 80MHz, 160Mhz and 320MHz. Since actual mechanisms are TBD, certainly can be made to fit within regulatory frameworks, LTE (NR-U) has mechanisms to exploit this already in an efficient way. Personally, I think that there is time for change, we should be able to yield significant gains. And yes, any new amendment is better than the old one - wider BW, higher modulation, lower latency, etc. … then why not include also more efficient channel access?

Thanks and Regards,

Vinko..

From: Matthew Fischer [mailto:00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 5:14 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBE] Request for further discussion on SP198 non-primary transmission

Guogang,

Here are some responses to your specific questions:

1. the proposal provides an optional behavior and the performance depends on the available unused bandwidth, so it is very scenario dependent, but in any case, whenever it is used, it is taking advantage of BW that is otherwise unused, so it would be a net gain - whether that gain is worth the addition of the mechanism is an individualized tradeoff decision to be made by implementers, but we view the extra effort for implementation as not far from what is already being done on other channels, and again, if you do not accept the tradeoff, you can opt out by not implementing the option

2. provided that the access rules incorporate some random access, it should be within regulations

3. STA that are members of the BSS and that do not support the transmission or reception on secondary channels should not be affected if they are sharing the primary channel, as those devices would be shut out of access anyway - i.e. the secondary channel access only occurs when the primary is busy and some secondary channels are available - any STA that is legacy and therefore does not participate in the secondary channel access will be completely unaffected because they are waiting for the end of the busy condition on the primary channel

STAs that are OBSS and that do not support the transmission or reception on secondary channels that are not sharing the primary channel might see more competitive pressure, but this is not much different than what they already experience from full BW transmissions from the same in-BSS - i.e. this proposal simply means that more of the transmissions from my competing BSS will become full BW, but my BSS has the right to access the full BW already - this mechanism simply increases the number of TXOPs for which I exercise my full BW rights

Matthew Fischer

Nice Guy

Broadcom Inc.

+1 408 543 3370 office

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:58 AM huangguogang <huangguogang1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Alfred and sndhu,

I want further discussion on SP198 non-primary transmission. Because some issues need to be clarified before running the motion, e.g.

l This is a big change for the WLAN system, but hasn't see some performance evaluations. We don't know how much gain we can get, and what's the affect for legacy system;
l We need to evaluate whether it violate the regulation. It seems the proposed solution is a new architecture that not existed in current EU regulations.
l Fairness issue to legacy STA or EHT STA that not support non-primary channel transmission.

Sndhu, could you please defer this motion? We can do more offline discussion on it.

Regards
Guogang Huang

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1