Hi Dmitry, Mohamed,
Please my comments
in green below about the usage of P-EDCA.
From: Akhmetov, Dmitry <Dmitry.Akhmetov@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: jeudi 9 avril 2026 22:53
To: STDS-802-11-TGBN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] P-EDCA 97us problem
|
BEWARE: This email originated outside of our organization. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please report all suspicious emails to the ISS department as an attachment.
|
Hi Mohamed, all,
Please see below in
blue
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for your response, please see comments below
Thank you for your comments. I formatted your reply for better reading, please see below
- On changes in clause 10.3.2.9 CTS and DMG CTS procedure
- The change _might_ be needed if the group decide to go with “shorten the protected duration” approach. Also see (3) for more thoughts on
that
[MA] Not sure how do you consider this an option, We shall not change VHT STA behavior. Am I missing something?
[Akhmetov, Dmitry] I’m not seeing why we cannot change VHT STA behavior. EHT STA is a VHT STA. I agree that we cannot change _legacy_ behavior, but that is different story
[PN] Agree with Mohamed. I think that it is not desirable to modify the behavior of VHT STA. The best way is to adapt the next gen devices
for better performance. If I understand well, you modify the spec of VHT STAs to improve the P-EDCA mechanism for 11bn devices.
…
[MA] Applying a new feature for new APs and STAs will enhance both UL and DL performance for new devices. However, the issue arises because the AP can utilize P-EDCA for all DL traffic to legacy and UHR devices, while
only UHR devices are currently using P-EDCA. Consequently, the AP, which is contending for more traffic, will increasingly use P-EDCA. As a result, UL, the purpose of which was to introduce this feature, will be competing with the AP’s P-EDCA traffic frequently.
[Akhmetov, Dmitry] Well, since very beginning I was arguing that P-EDCA is solely a UL feature, but group decided that AP should use it as well, so now we have to live with it. Regarding your
fear of AP to use P-EDCA frequently – well, it does not depend on whether AP deliver traffic to legacy or to non-legacy clients. P-EDCA is a feature that enhance channel access for AC_VO. We do not put restriction on what type of traffic can be transmitted
once you obtained a TXOP during P-EDCA contention. STA compete for the medium access to TX “a” traffic, not “the” traffic.
Also, do not forget that besides traditional BSS we may have soft-APs with 1-2 clients attached and it very well can be a case when “modern” phone with soft-AP that has “older” laptop connected
to it.
So I do not think it is right idea to limit operation for EHT clients only
[PN] I think that P-EDCA mechanism introduces a global unfairness on the primary channel. I agree that P-EDCA improves the medium access priority. But taking into account that P-EDCA is allowed
for any AC_VO traffics is a big issue for me. Moreover today, many STAs transmit their data flows using the AC_VO. I think that we should introduce compensation for STAs that abuses the usage of P-EDCA especially when the P-EDCA QSRC threshold value is low.
When a STA takes advantage of P-EDCA, it must pay by any kind of penalized mechanisms after. You must ensure the QoS equilibrium to avoid any bottlenecks.
Regards
Patrice
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1
|