| | 1 | |
| | 2 | == Application Scenarios for Intel Coexistence Project == |
| | 3 | |
| | 4 | The methodology I propose that we follow to derive some meaningful scenarios to evaluate potential effects of coexistence and solutions in this space is as follows: |
| | 5 | |
| | 6 | * We determine '''a set of radio technologies''' of interest and agree on their '''typical operational parameters''' (channels, output powers/range, typical use etc.) |
| | 7 | * We define three habitats, in each a subset of these radios lives (a reasonable mix in terms of number, physical placement and offered traffic). Let these habitats be '''Home, SOHO/Small Enterprise, and Large Enterprise.''' The implicit assumption here is that we consider indoor type settlements. Should we think about outdoor also is a topic of discussion I will not consider, at least for now. |
| | 8 | * For each of these habitats, we select a '''representative floorplan''' (or something similar, blueprint etc.) and place the selected radios on their “would be” locations, while thinking about the '''actual people and their purpose''' in using those technologies. |
| | 9 | |
| | 10 | [[BR]] |
| | 11 | |
| | 12 | Aiming for above methodology, I first collected the following (non-exhaustive and more or less random) collection of radio technologies we might consider in a coexistence study. Feel free to add and/or correct as necessary. |
| | 13 | |
| | 14 | [[BR]] |
| | 15 | |
| | 16 | || '''POTENTIAL RADIO TECHNOLOGIES [[BR]](COEXISTENCE HABITAT)''' || |
| | 17 | || '''Radio Technology''' || '''Typical Range''' || '''Max. Output Power''' || '''Frequency Occupied''' || '''Max. Bitrate Supported''' || '''Typical Usage''' || |
| | 18 | || 802.11a/b/g/n (WIFI) || 150-300 feet || 17 dBm || 2.4 GHz ISM, [[BR]]5 Ghz UNII || 248 Mbits/s || WLAN, device to device ad-hoc communication, cheap long range links || |
| | 19 | || 802.16 (WiMAX) || 3-5 miles (12 miles) || 22 dBm (handheld)[[BR]]26 dBm BS || 2.300 – 2.400 GHz2.496 – 2.690 GHz3.300 – 3.800 GHz || 4 Mbits/s (70 Mbits/s) || WWAN, last mile broadband || |
| | 20 | || Cellular (GSM,CDMA, GPRS) || 10 miles (typical) || 30dBm || 824 - 894 MHz,880 – 960 MHz1770-1880 MHz,1850-1990 MHz || 236 Kbits/s || Voice, packet data || |
| | 21 | || UMTS (W-CDMA,CDMA 2000, 1XEVDV,1XEV-DO)[[BR]] || 10 miles (typical) || 30dBm || 1920 -1980 MHz2110 -2170 MHz || 14.7 Mbits/s (rev.B) || Voice, packet data || |
| | 22 | || 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) || 150-300 feet (Class 1)15-30 feet (Class 2)3-4inch (Class 3) || 20 dBm (Class 1)4 dBm (Class 2)[[BR]]0 dBm (Class 3) || 2.4 ISM || 3 Mbits/s (EDR) || WPAN, peripheral communications || |
| | 23 | || UWB/Wireless USB || 30-100 feet || -41dBm/Hz || 3.1 – 10.6 GHz || 500 Mbits/s || WPAN, peripheral communications || |
| | 24 | || 802.15.4 (ZIGBEE) || 33-246 feet || 3 dBm (current implementations) || 868MHz (EU), 915 Mhz (US), 2.4GHz ISM || 20-250Kbits/s || WPAN, short range device control || |
| | 25 | || GPS || 12,000 miles || RCV Only || 1575.42 MHz1227.6 MHz || 50 bits/s || Navigation, Location Tracking || |
| | 26 | || DVB-H || variable (2-3 mile transmitters popular) || RCV Only || 1.6-1.7GHz (US), 470-820MHz (EU) || 6.9 Mbits/s || Digital Video Broadcast, TV || |
| | 27 | |
| | 28 | [[BR]] |
| | 29 | |
| | 30 | The following figure is a visual representation of the first order derivate of most of the items detailed in the table (borrowed from a ZIGBEE Alliance Presentation). |
| | 31 | |
| | 32 | [[BR]] |
| | 33 | |
| | 34 | [[Image(802spectrum.jpg)]] |
| | 35 | |
| | 36 | [[BR]] |
| | 37 | |
| | 38 | What follows is my first attempt to create the scenario for the SOHO/Small Enterprise habitat. I had an office of about ~20 active people working in a semi partitioned space, size being not much different than the ORBIT grid room. I have picked this following floorplan, which I though to be typical, and started throwing radios on to the locations I deemed appropriate. I think of this floorplan having a main conference room (a very active one, on the left, middle) and another smaller meeting room (far upper corner). Boss has a room on the right bottom corner, with frequent visitors, and the rest of the staff resides in the cubical spaces and the lab spaces on the center and rightmost side of the floorplan. Also, there are some support rooms (kitchen, copier, cabinet, mail room etc.) other than the ones I mentioned. |
| | 39 | |
| | 40 | [[BR]] |
| | 41 | |
| | 42 | [[Image(SOHO.png)]] |
| | 43 | |
| | 44 | [[BR]] |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | * I started with 802.11 network and thought that an average system/network admin would start supporting this size office (~20 people) with '''two access points'''. One of them being closer to the central area of activity: '''conference room'''. The rest is supported by the AP on the rightmost corner of the floorplan. I have distributed 20 802.11 clients depending on the seating distribution. For the traffic assumptions, I tend to refer to the recent sniffing study I did in WINLAB, and use the following simplified distribution of workload (details withdrawn here). |
| | 47 | * TCP (97%), UDP (3%) |
| | 48 | * WWW (75%), VoIP (3%), Background Traffic (File Transfers, Printing, etc. 22%) |
| | 49 | * Then, I have placed a '''UWB''' enabled projector (as frequently referred to in Intel presentations :), and a UWB enabled laptop in the conference room, assuming the meeting involves one participant streaming a video from his laptop to the projector for the rest of the audience. |
| | 50 | * Also, I have considered three people '''actively using Bluetooth''' for their cell-phone headsets and/or to listen to music from their PCs. It is appropriate to consider these as CBR type 64Kbps or 128Kbps streams, flowing locally from one device to the other. |
| | 51 | * Also, we have a guest sitting on the couch near the window, while he is trying to do cheap long-distance VoIP communication using the WiMAX handheld his company gave him. This traffic would be a 96Kbps UDP stream carried on 300byte frames, tolerating a max.of 5% loss with 30ms delay requirement. |
| | 52 | * The last group of radios in this habitat belongs to the '''smart building''' infrastructure using''' ZIGBEE.''' there are sensors/actators on each light fixture as well as a heating/AC sensor. Two ZIGBEE concentrators act as relays for the communication to the rest of the infrastructure in the building. Content of the traffic is considered to be sub-minute reading (in <50byte frames) updates and occasional reactive actuation communications not exceeding a couple of Kbits/s. |
| | 53 | |
| | 54 | [[BR]] |
| | 55 | |
| | 56 | Before going any further with this approach for the other two scenarios, I would like to stop and ask for feedback on everything I have said so far. |
