Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0 Submission March 2002 Wentink, IntersilSlide 1 A simpler and better EDCF Menzo Wentink Ron Brockmann Maarten Hoeben Intersil.

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

A simpler and better EDCFA simpler and better EDCF

Menzo WentinkMenzo Wentink

Ron BrockmannRon Brockmann

Maarten HoebenMaarten Hoeben

IntersilIntersil

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Related letter ballot commentsRelated letter ballot comments

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Categories of LB commentsCategories of LB comments

• EDCF justificationEDCF justification– Complexity

– Performance – can it do the job

• EDCF requests for enhancementsEDCF requests for enhancements• No solution for IBSS operationNo solution for IBSS operation• No proven solution for overlapNo proven solution for overlap

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Line of thinkingLine of thinking

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Line of thinking (1)Line of thinking (1)

• In the current EDCF, IFS and CW are used for In the current EDCF, IFS and CW are used for latency and bandwidth differentiationlatency and bandwidth differentiation

• However: the CW space is limited as a However: the CW space is limited as a differentiator for both latency and bandwidth, differentiator for both latency and bandwidth, and AIFS is complexand AIFS is complex

• Instead, the CFB length per priority is a more Instead, the CFB length per priority is a more effective bandwidth differentiatoreffective bandwidth differentiator

• Separate latency and bandwidth differentiationSeparate latency and bandwidth differentiation– CW for latency (CWmin/CWmax) – CFB size for bandwidth

• Fixed parameter values!Fixed parameter values!

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Line of thinking (2)Line of thinking (2)

• So for EDCF, we propose to differentiate three So for EDCF, we propose to differentiate three parameters:parameters:– CWmin, CWmax, CFB length

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Applications - bandwidth vs latencyApplications - bandwidth vs latency

Ban

dwid

th

Latency

CF

B le

ngth

CWmin/CWmax

excellent effort

vide

o

best effort

HDTV

interactive

voice

10 ms 100 ms

0.5 ms

3 ms

0/1 15/10237/15

64 kbps

25 Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

• RTSThreshold = 300 Bytes.RTSThreshold = 300 Bytes.

Suggested EDCF default settingsSuggested EDCF default settings

prioritypriority CWminCWmin CWmaxCWmax CFB limitCFB limit

0 (be)0 (be) 1515 10231023 1 frame exch.1 frame exch.

1 (ee)1 (ee) 1515 10231023 1.5ms1.5ms

2 (it)2 (it) 77 1515 1 frame exch.1 frame exch.

3 – spare3 – spare -- -- --

4 (vi)4 (vi) 77 1515 3.0ms3.0ms

5 (vo)5 (vo) 00 11 0.5ms0.5ms

6 – spare6 – spare -- -- --

7 – spare7 – spare -- -- --

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

SimulationsSimulations

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Simulations (1)Simulations (1)

• 24 Mbps PHY rate, unless noted otherwise24 Mbps PHY rate, unless noted otherwise• 802.11g slots (20 usec) are used, unless noted 802.11g slots (20 usec) are used, unless noted

otherwiseotherwise• RTSThreshold = 300 BytesRTSThreshold = 300 Bytes• Simulations are performed with Network Simulations are performed with Network

SimulatorSimulator

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Simulations (2)Simulations (2)

• Traffic types in each scenarioTraffic types in each scenario– Voice: UDP, 290 Byte packets, 30 pps (G.711)

– Video: UDP, 2300 Byte packets, increasing load (+1 Mbps per second)

– Data: TCP, 1500 Byte packets

• All flows are upstreamAll flows are upstream• Note that the video latency and voice latency Note that the video latency and voice latency

plots have a different scaleplots have a different scale

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

16 nodes16 nodes7 voice streams7 voice streams1 video stream1 video stream7 data streams7 data streams

(16:7/1/7)(16:7/1/7)

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

7 voice / 1 video (36) / 7 data / 16 nodes voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5ms (24 Mbps)video: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.0ms (36 Mbps)

data: CWmin=15, CWmax=1023 (24 Mbps)

applied videoload (Mbps)

throughput per class

data throughput

video throughput- increases linearly with the offered load

total throughout

voice bandwidth – unaffected by other load

video throughput capped whenthe applied video load exceeds amaximum level

25 Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 14

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

7 voice / 1 video (36) / 7 data / 16 nodes voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5msvideo: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.0ms

data: CWmin=15, CWmax=1023

applied video load (Mbps)

time fractions

data fraction

video fraction

total useful time fraction

voice fraction

100%

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



applied video load (Mbps)

video throughputvideo throughput is capped whenthe applied video load exceeds amaximum levelthe video throughput rises linearly

with the offered video load

25 Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 16

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission




video latency

the video latency stays low over a very wide range

sharp increase when theoffered load exceedsthe maximum possible

50ms

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission




voice latency

the voice latency stays very low,even under heavy overload conditions10ms

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Explanation of the EDCF parametersExplanation of the EDCF parameters

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 19

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Why does CFB differentiation workWhy does CFB differentiation work

• EDCF assigns TXOPs independent of the TXOP EDCF assigns TXOPs independent of the TXOP lengthlength

• Longer CFBs results in higher usage per TXOP, Longer CFBs results in higher usage per TXOP, for same CW, thus higher bandwidthfor same CW, thus higher bandwidth

• CFBs reduce network contention and increase CFBs reduce network contention and increase the efficiency!the efficiency!

• Effect of CFBs increases when Effect of CFBs increases when overall traffic load increases, overall traffic load increases, because the CFBs are more fully because the CFBs are more fully usedused

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 20

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

CFBs CFBs decreasedecrease latency and jitter latency and jitter

• CFBs help to reduce network CFBs help to reduce network contention and collisionscontention and collisions– jitter is reduced

• CFBs allow to use relatively high CFBs allow to use relatively high CWmin values for high-bandwidth CWmin values for high-bandwidth priority streamspriority streams

• Lower CWmin values can be used Lower CWmin values can be used for low-latency applications like for low-latency applications like voicevoice

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 21

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Another advantage of CFBsAnother advantage of CFBs

• Higher PHY rates result in increasingly Higher PHY rates result in increasingly inefficient EDCF operationinefficient EDCF operation– IFS and slot-time overhead becomes larger

compared to the length of frames

• Time-limited CFBs easily scale up to higher Time-limited CFBs easily scale up to higher bitrates by aggregating more frames into a bitrates by aggregating more frames into a single CFBsingle CFB

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 22

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

CWmin = 0?CWmin = 0?

• Ideal for transmitters with low traffic intensityIdeal for transmitters with low traffic intensity• Exponential backoff ensures CW increaseExponential backoff ensures CW increase• Very often, the medium is free at DIFSVery often, the medium is free at DIFS

– nodes with interrupted backoff never transmit at DIFS, because minimum remaining backoff after deferral is 1 slot --> DIFS+1 is the soonest!!.

• Fixed CWmin=0 automatically adapts to the Fixed CWmin=0 automatically adapts to the traffic load (more interrupted backoff)traffic load (more interrupted backoff)

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 23

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

CWmaxCWmax

• Worst-case latency and jitter are determined Worst-case latency and jitter are determined by CWmaxby CWmax– after few collisions the current CW can become very

large, even when started with a low CWmin

– latency insensitive traffic should defer to latency sensitive traffic in case of collisions.

– CWmax differentiation helps bounding jitter for low-latency streams

• The effect automatically adapts to traffic load, The effect automatically adapts to traffic load, based on based on fixedfixed CWmax settings CWmax settings

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 24

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

RTS/CTSRTS/CTS

• Protects no-Ack burstsProtects no-Ack bursts• Resolves hidden nodes situationsResolves hidden nodes situations• Reduces the cost of collisionsReduces the cost of collisions• The effect scales with the traffic load, based on The effect scales with the traffic load, based on

a fixed RTS thresholda fixed RTS threshold

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 25

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Implementation is extremely simpleImplementation is extremely simple

• CWmin: existingCWmin: existing• CWmax: existingCWmax: existing• CFBs: similar to fragment burstingCFBs: similar to fragment bursting• RTS/CTS: existingRTS/CTS: existing• No IFS differentiationNo IFS differentiation• No new frame formatsNo new frame formats• No dynamic parameter updatesNo dynamic parameter updates

• Simple, but the functionality is great!Simple, but the functionality is great!

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 26

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

ConclusionsConclusions

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 27

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Conclusions (1)Conclusions (1)

• Excellent support for voice under any scenario (< 10 Excellent support for voice under any scenario (< 10 ms delay)ms delay)

• Excellent support for video (<< 50 ms delay)Excellent support for video (<< 50 ms delay)

• Excellent bandwidth and latency differentiationExcellent bandwidth and latency differentiation

• Very high channel efficiencyVery high channel efficiency

• Scales transparantly to higher rate PHYsScales transparantly to higher rate PHYs

• Works in overlap and non-overlap scenariosWorks in overlap and non-overlap scenarios

• Works for IBSS and infrastructureWorks for IBSS and infrastructure

• Supports unicast, multicast and no-ACK (FEC)Supports unicast, multicast and no-ACK (FEC)

• Works upstream, downstream and sidestreamWorks upstream, downstream and sidestream

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 28

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Conclusions (2)Conclusions (2)

• Requires no changes to current 802.11 MAC framesRequires no changes to current 802.11 MAC frames• Simple - Minimal set of mechanismsSimple - Minimal set of mechanisms• Constant parameters - no parameter-tuning intelligence Constant parameters - no parameter-tuning intelligence

needed in APneeded in AP– No possible oscillations between different implementations in

overlap situations

• Implicit accommodation of bursty trafficImplicit accommodation of bursty traffic• Legacy STAs can participate in QoS network, and receive Legacy STAs can participate in QoS network, and receive

QoS flowsQoS flows– No need for legacy upgrade

• Simple to Analyze/Simulate/ImplementSimple to Analyze/Simulate/Implement• Predictable behaviorPredictable behavior• Works with hidden nodesWorks with hidden nodes

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 29

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

• Explanation of the classesExplanation of the classes– be: Best Effort

– ee: Excellent Effort

– it: Interactive TCP

– vi: Video

– vo: Voice

Default settings (2)Default settings (2)

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 30

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

MotionsMotions

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 31

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Motion 1Motion 1• Instruct the Editor to change the words “MPDU Instruct the Editor to change the words “MPDU

or MMPDU” into “CFB” in the first paragraph or MMPDU” into “CFB” in the first paragraph of 9.10.3.of 9.10.3.– A TXOP obtained by winning EDCF

contention may be used to send a CFB with total medium occupancy time not exceeding the TXOP limit from the QoS parameter set element in the beacon. […]

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 32

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Motion 2Motion 2• Instruct the Editor to create 8 TXOP limits Instruct the Editor to create 8 TXOP limits

(from 1), in the QoS Parameter Set.(from 1), in the QoS Parameter Set.

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 33

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Motion 3Motion 3• Instruct the Editor to incorporate changes the Instruct the Editor to incorporate changes the

the TGe draft, such that EDCF differentiation is the TGe draft, such that EDCF differentiation is limited to CWmin, CWmax and the TXOP limit limited to CWmin, CWmax and the TXOP limit per priority.per priority.

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 34

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

• Instruct the Editor to specify the following mandatory Instruct the Editor to specify the following mandatory default values for the QoS Parameter Set, for 802.11g default values for the QoS Parameter Set, for 802.11g and 802.11a PHYs:and 802.11a PHYs:

– RTSThreshold = 300 Bytes.

Motion 4Motion 4

prioritypriority CWminCWmin CWmaxCWmax CFB limitCFB limit

0 (be)0 (be) 1515 10231023 1 frame exch.1 frame exch.

1 (ee)1 (ee) 1515 10231023 1.5ms1.5ms

2 (it)2 (it) 77 1515 1 frame exch.1 frame exch.

33 -- -- --

4 (vi)4 (vi) 77 1515 3.0ms3.0ms

5 (vo)5 (vo) 00 11 0.5ms0.5ms

66 -- -- --

77 -- -- --

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 35

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

Motion 5Motion 5• Instruct the Editor to remove the QoS Parameter Instruct the Editor to remove the QoS Parameter

Set from the beacon.Set from the beacon.

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 36

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

More simulationsMore simulations

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 37

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

SimulationsSimulations

• All flows are upstream (sidestream)All flows are upstream (sidestream)

• Traffic typesTraffic types– voice: UDP, 290 Byte packets, 30 pps (G.711)

– video: UDP, 2300 Byte packets, increasing load (+1 Mbps per second)

– data: TCP, 1500 Byte packets

• Note that the video and voice latency plots have a Note that the video and voice latency plots have a different scaledifferent scale

• NotationNotation– 4:1/1/1 for 4 active nodes, 1 voice, 1 video, 1 background

– 7-15-3.0 for CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB size=3.0ms

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 38

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

4:1/1/14:1/1/1

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 39

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

1 voice (24) / 1 video (36) / 1 data (24) / 4 voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5msvideo: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.0msdata: CWmin=15, CWmax=1023, CFB=0

video load(Mbps)

throughput per class25 Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 40

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

1 voice / 1 video (36) / 1 data / 4 voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5msvideo: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.0msdata: CWmin=15, CWmax=1023, CFB=0

video load(Mbps)

time fractions100%

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 41

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

video throughput25 Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 42

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 43

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 44

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

18:7/3/718:7/3/7

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 45

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 46

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

time fractions per class100%

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 47

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 48

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 49

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission


video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 50

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

16:7/1/716:7/1/7

15-15-4.515-15-4.5

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 51

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

7 voice / 1 video (36) / 7 data / 16 voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5ms

video: CWmin=15, CWmax=15, CFB=4.5msdata: CWmin=15, CWmax=1023, CFB=0

video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 52

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

time fraction per class100%

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 53

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 54

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 55

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 56

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

18:7/3/718:7/3/7

15-15-4.515-15-4.5

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 57

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 58

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

time fraction per class100%

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 59

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video throughput

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 60

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 61

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 62

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

8:3/1/38:3/1/3

7-15-3.57-15-3.5

CCK RTS/CTSCCK RTS/CTS

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 63

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

3 voice / 1 video (36) / 3 data / 8 voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5msvideo: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.5ms


video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 64

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

time fraction per class

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 65

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 66

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 67

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 68

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

10:3/3/310:3/3/3

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

802.11a PHY802.11a PHY

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 69

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 70

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 71

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 72

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 73

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 74

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

10:5/1/510:5/1/5

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

0% PHY frame loss0% PHY frame loss

(+ collisions)(+ collisions)

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 75

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 76

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 77

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 78

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 79

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 80

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

10:5/1/510:5/1/5

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

2% PHY frame loss2% PHY frame loss

(+ collisions)(+ collisions)

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 81

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 82

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 83

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 84

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 85

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 86

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

10:5/1/510:5/1/5

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

hidden video nodehidden video node

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 87

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 88

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 89

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 90

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 91

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 92

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

8:3/1/38:3/1/3

7-15-3.07-15-3.0

Best effort at 12MbpsBest effort at 12Mbps

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 93

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission

3 voice / 3 video (36) / 3 data (12) / 10 voice: CWmin=0, CWmax=1, CFB=0.5msvideo: CWmin=7, CWmax=15, CFB=3.0ms


video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 94

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 95

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)


March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 96

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

video latency

March 2002

Wentink, Intersil

Slide 97

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0

Submission



video load(Mbps)

voice latency

Doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/214r0 Submission March 2002 Wentink, IntersilSlide 1 A simpler and better EDCF Menzo Wentink Ron Brockmann Maarten Hoeben Intersil.

Documents

ms video

02214r0 submission

mbps slide

load video throughput

video stream

video load mbps throughput

offered video load

ms data