Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Sept. 2003

Kim[Samsung], Mansfield, et.al[Sharp]Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.15-03/xxxr0

Submission

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Submission Title: [Evaluation of TG3a Proposals and Open Issues]Date Submitted: [Sept. 2003]Source: [Inhwan Kim] Company [Samsung] Address [416 Maetan3-Dong Paldal-Gu Suwon-Si Gyeonggi-Do, Korea 442-742] Voice[82.31.200.2510], FAX: [82.31.200.3350], E-Mail:[[email protected], [email protected]] Source: [Carl Mansfield, Susumu Kitaguchi, Song-Lin Young] Company [Sharp Corp, Sharp Labs. of America]Address [5750 NW Pacific Rim Blvd, Camas, WA, 98607]Voice:[+1 360 834 8764], FAX: [+1 360 834 8696], E-Mail [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]

Re: [P802.15-03/276r0]

Abstract: [This document compares two Alt-PHY proposals vs. CE Requirements Criteria in doc. 03/276r0 and lists open issues common/specific to each proposal.]

Purpose: [The purpose of this document is to provide to TG3a a joint contribution of Sharp and Samsung comparing the requirements of the CE industry with two TG3a proposals to aid in the selection process for candidate Alt PHY.]

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.

Sept. 2003



Submission

Evaluation of TG3a Proposals vs. CE Requirements and Open Issues

Sept. 2003



Submission

CE perspective on criteria requirements (1)

Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 10

Criteria Home theatre Portable

Cost andComplexity

The minimum requirement is less than 802.11a

Desired Target is equivalent to Bluetooth

Minimum requirement is less than 802.11b

Desired target is less than Bluetooth

InterferenceRobustness

Must coexist with 802.11a/b/g, cellular and cordless phones andmicrowave ovens in 10-20cm range

Must coexist with 802.11a/b/g, GPS, cellular and cordlessphones within the same cabinet (1-5cm distance)

Multi-PiconetSupport

Number of overlapping SOP: Absolute minimum: 4 Target: 8+

Degradation under SOP condition should not exceed 50%throughput reduction with no error rate reduction.

Same as <-

Fast ConnectMaximum acceptable time: 1 second

Desired target: less than 500ms

Maximum acceptable time: 1 second

Desired target: less than 200ms

PowerConsumption

Maximum: Less than 802.11a

Desired: <300mW

Minimum: Less than 200mW

Desired: less than 100mW

Size

Antenna size: should be less than 4cm x 4cm (1cm x 1cm isdesirable) without degrading range and coverage performance

Module size without antenna must be small enough forimplementation within cellular handset (less than 5mm x 5mm)

Antenna size must be suitable for implementation within cellularhandset and CF card (less than 2cmx2cm required, less than1cmx1cm desirable) without degrading coverage performance

Maximum:

Sept. 2003



Submission

CE perspective on criteria requirements (2)

Criteria Home theatre Portable

Range and coverage

98% Link success at 7m is required

98% Link success at 10m is desirable

Must apply to multi-path fading and shadowing environment and with near-wall placement

95% Link success at 5m is required

Data Rate Sets

110Mbps at 10m is Mandatory

480Mbps at 1m is useful for connection of portable devices, but not considered mandatory

110Mbps at 10m is mandatory

480Mbps at 1m is desirable

Flexibility/ Scalability

Ability to evolve to support higher throughput is desirable

Ability to support interoperable implementations with lower throughput (down to 1Mbps), complexity and cost is desirable, but only if the total cost saving exceeds 50% when compared to the full implementation

Same as <-

Ranging/ Location

Awareness

Location awareness is desirable: range 10m, resolution <30cm Location awareness is highly desirable: range 10m, resolution <30cm

Time to Market Must be available by 1H2005 (2H 2004 is desirable) Must be available by early 2006 (mid 2005 is desirable)

Local Regulatory Adaptability

Desirable to have ability for manufacturer to configure by SW at time of assembly

Same as <-

Source: 03276r0P802-15_TG3a-Consumer-Electronic-Requirements-for-TG3a.ppt, Slide 11

Sept. 2003



Submission

Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (1)

Data do not meet CE requirements

Additional data required

Data meet CE requirements

Criteria

Cost andComplexity


Multi-Piconet Support

Fast Connect

PowerConsumption

Size

Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0Mode 1 Mode 2

110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOSTX: 117/93mWRX: 205/155mWSleep: 18/15uW

110Mb/s, 130/90nm CMOSTX: 186/150mWRX: 271/209mWSleep: 18/15uW

Not addressed• New information required

90nm CMOS foundries available 1H2004Digital portion (for PHY) gate count: 295kExternal components: pre-selection filter, balun, crystal oscillator, voltage regulator, SRAM

PC & CF cards, memory stick, and SD memory form factors in 200516mmx13.6mmx3mm antenna commercially available

Microwave oven: 0.16m802.11a & b, 802.15.3: ~0.2mBluetooth (802.15.1) & 802.15.4: ~0.02mModulated interferer: SIR>-9dB(-3.6 in May)Tone interferer: SIR>-7.9dB (-5.6 in May)110Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 29, up to 4 SOP.

110/200Mbps Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 30, 31 respectivelyup to 4 SOP.

Die size: 4.6(=2.7+1.9)mm2 (90nm), 6.8(=3+3.8) mm2 (130nm)

• Total cost/complexity should be compared to relative scale of 802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively

Comments from CE prospects

• Mode 1 200Mbps performance required• Degradation of throughput not reported, <50%

required

• Mode 2 performance is required

Die size: 4.8(=2.9+1.9)mm2 (90nm), 7.0(=3.2+3.8) mm2 (130nm)

Not disclosed

200Mbps: NA

• For 802.11a/b/g, 0.2m does not meet Portable device requirement of 1-5cm

• Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired

• Data for 200Mbps required

Not addressed

• Mode 2 should identify incremental cost of frequency dependent external components

• Mode 2 (130nm) may not meet 200mW for Portable

• Mode 1 meets desired 300mW(Home theater) and max. 200mW(Portable)

• Not clear whether module meets 5mmx5mm requirement for portable devices

• Not clear whether Mode 2 same as Mode 1

• Antenna size meets both Home theater and Portable requirement

Sept. 2003



Submission

Proposal Responses, MB-OFDM (2)

Criteria

Doc. 03/267r5 & 03/268r0Mode 1 Mode 2

Range andcoverage

Data Rate Sets

Flexibility/Scalability

Ranging/LocationAwareness

Time to Market

Local RegulatoryAdaptability

Earliest complete CMOS PHY solutions for integration: 2005

Allow positioning accuracy to within a few centimetersExact mechanism is up to implementation

Sub-band can be adjusted for different regulatory areas

Mandatory: 55Mbps (header), 110, and 200MbpsOptional: 80, 160, 320, and 480Mbps

90% Link success for 8%PER of 1024 bytes:

AWGN: 18.4mCM1:CM2:CM3:CM4:

Data rate: 55-480Mbps Frequency: Mode 1(Mandatory)& Mode 2 (Optional)Complexity: Mandatory data rates require only one DAC & mixer for TX train; Digital section scales with future CMOS process; implementation could always trade off complexity for performance Power: half rate PRF increases off time to enable power saving modes; trade off power consumption for range and data rate

• Performance data for Mode 2 required110MbpsAWGN: 20.5mCM1: 11.5mCM2: 10.9mCM3: 11.6mCM4: 11m

200MbpsAWGN: 14.1mCM1: 6.9mCM2: 6.3mCM3: 6.8mCM4: 5.0m

• FH issue to be cleared by FCC

Not disclosedNot disclosedNot disclosedNot disclosed

Not clear whether it’s same as Mode 1


• 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m (desired) for Home theater not used

• 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not used

• Data rate set meets requirements

• Specific data for range and resolution required

• Not clear whether availability is 1H2005 (required)• Not clear whether Mode 2 availability same time as Mode 1

• Adaptability meets CE requirements




• Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement

• Support for interoperable implementations of lower throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported

Sept. 2003



Submission

Proposal Responses, XSI /ParthusCeva -CDMA (1)

Criteria

Cost and

Complexity


Multi-Piconet Support

Fast Connect

PowerConsumption

Size

Not addressed

RF front end: 4.7x4.1mm, 0.18um SiGe PLCP BB: 4.4x4.4mm, 0.18um CMOS0.18um CMOS/SiGe(RF front end) process in 2002Gate count: TBDExternal components: Not disclosed

Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3

114/200Mbps: Dint/Dref for CM1-CM4 given in Slide 39, 40 for up to 4 SOPRMS cross-correlation < -15 dB in a flat fading channel

802.11b/g, 802.15.3/4, microwave ovens: Receiver does not respond to either 2.4GHz or 900MHz ISM bands802.11a: Receiver does not respond to either 5GHz NII bandsProcessing gain provides SIR>-14dB for narrow band (modulated or tone) interferenceNotch filter can provide up to 40dB additional interference rejection

TX: 107mW (RF & PLCP)RX: 174mW (RF & PLCP)Sleep: 2mW (PLCP)Idle: 23mW (PLCP)

Note:Based on 90nm CMOS

Antenna size:LB: 1.1x1.1 in; HB: 0.6x0.6 inModule size not disclosedExternal components not disclosed

• Gate count information required• External components information required

• Module size information required• External components information required

Comments from CE prospects• Total cost/complexity(Silicon+Module/External

Components+Antenna) should be compared to relative scale of 802.11a/Bluetooth, 802.11b/Bluetooth for Home theater, Portable applications respectively

• New information required

• Data meet desired 300mW(Home theater) and required 200mW (Portable) if 90nm CMOS used

• Data for processes used in current design required

• LB antenna meets required 4cmx4cm for Home theater; HB antenna meets required 2cmx2cm for Portable

• LB antenna exceeds 2cmx2cm required by Portable

• Meet min. required 4 SOP, but 8 is desired

• Degradation of throughput not reported, <50% required

• No results reported regarding to 10-20cm for Home theater or 1-5cm for Portable devices required for all interference sources




Sept. 2003



Submission

Proposal Responses, XSI/ParthusCeva-CDMA (2)Criteria

Doc. 03/153r10 & 03/154r3

Range andcoverage

Data Rate Sets

Flexibility/Scalability

Ranging/LocationAwareness

Time to Market

Local RegulatoryAdaptability

114MbpsAWGN: 21.6mCM1: 15mCM2: 13.5mCM3: 11.5mCM4: 10m

200MbpsAWGN: 15.8mCM1: 11.1mCM2: 10mCM3: 8.8mCM4: 7.5m

Average PER for 90% Link success (8% PER)

LB: Production chip end of 2003HB & Duplex: N/A

10cm resolution in 20m range

LB: 28.5-400MbpsHB: 57-800MbpsDuplex: up to 1.2GHz

Center frequency and bandwidth adjustable without changes of silicon


• Data rate set meets requirements

• 98% Link success at 7m (required) and 10m (desired) for Home theater not used

• 95%Link success at 5m (required) for Portable not used• Performance data for 90% Link successful distance

preferred for comparison

• Range and resolution meet requirements

• LB meets desired 2H2004

• Availability of other bands (HB, duplex, joint) required• Availability of CMOS implementation required)

• Adaptability meets CE requirements

4 types of spectral usage (LB, HB, Duplex, Joint band) for up to 1.2Gbps

Architecture allows components (FEC, each receiver channel, etc) usage to be adjusted such that incremental hardware additions result in the highest incremental SNR improvement.

• Support of higher throughput meets desired requirement

• Support for interoperable implementations of lower throughput with reduced cost/complexity not reported




Sept. 2003



Submission

Common Issues• Cost/Complexity:

– External components, antenna, and PCB should be included in addition to chip die

sizes • Multi-piconet support:

– No data for SOP more than 4 (8 desired). Please provide data for SOP more that 4.– Degradation of throughput has not been reported. Please provide.

• Connection Time:– Please provide Connection Time assessment and data for evaluation

• Range/coverage:– Both distance of 90% link success and distance of average PER for 90% link

success should be reported, or a conversion factor should be provided.– 98%, 95% Link success distance for Home theater and Portable applications

respectively are required.– Path loss exponents used in CM1-CM4 range calculations should be indicated

• Flexibility/Scalability:– Support of low throughput for less cost/complexity not mentioned

Sept. 2003



Submission

Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal

• Time-Frequency Code (TFC) management– Code acquisition methods required for:

• New device association

• Scanning available TFC to initiate a new piconet

– Rotation Sequence (RS) vs. Channelization & Multiple Access (See next slide):

• There appears to be a contradiction or ambiguity between the RS method described in 03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22 and the TFC method described in 03/268r0, p.35 Table 20.

• Please resolve the contradiction.

• Which of these two different methods was used to measure the performance reported in MB-OFDM proposal?

– Synchronization of TFC• It appears that SOP performance depends on synchronization of THC, i.e. 2 and 1

overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1 and Mode 2 respectively

• Unsynchronized TFC of two different piconets will have 4 and 2 overlapped sub-bands for Mode 1, 2 respectively

• Scenarios regarding TFC synchronization for SOP performance requires clarification

• Collisions of sub-band frequency and adjacent frequency to be accounted for.

Sept. 2003



Submission

MB-OFDM - TFC vs. Rotation Sequence

RS-1 TFC-1 TFC-3 TFC-2 TFC-1 TFC-3TFC-2

RS-2 TFC-1TFC-3 TFC-2TFC-2 TFC-3 TFC-1

Source: 03/268r0, p.35 Table 20

Source: 03/268r0, p. 50, Figure 22

ChannelNumber

PreamblePattern

Mode 1: Length 6 TimeFrequency Code

Mode 2: Length 7 Time FrequencyCode

1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 72 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 23 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 4 7 3 6 2 54 4 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 5 7 2 4 6

• Four channel no. (TH codes) each mode for multiple access. (slide 21 of Doc. 03/267r5 )

• 1.4.2 of Doc. 03/268r0 (p.35): “Channelization for different piconets is achieved by using different time frequency codes for different piconets.”

• In slide 10 of Doc. 03/267r5 ,”For a given superframe, the time-frequency code is specified in the beacon by the PNC. The time-frequency code is changed from one superframe to another in order to randomize multi-piconet interference”

• Randomization of sub-bands by Rotation Sequence (RS), in p.50 of Doc. 03/268r0

Sept. 2003



Submission

Questions on MB-OFDM Proposal - continued

• Management of operation mode:– Mode 2 performance data is incomplete. Please provide

complete data.– A discussion of the performance of hybrid operations is

requested• Mode 1 & 2 in the same piconet.• Mode 1 & 2 used in different piconets, collisions of TFC to be considered• Hybrid SOP performance vs. throughput

– How is the decision to change Mode 1 and Mode 2 made?– Who makes the decision to change modes?

Sept. 2003



Submission

Questions on XSI/ParthusCeva Proposal

• Cost/Complexity and Size:– External components need to be identified.

– What is the PLCP baseband gate count? It is listed as TBD (p.6, 03/154r3)

• Power consumption:– Power consumption estimate given is for 90nm CMOS (p.6,

03/154r3).

– What is power consumption of current design?

– This is important since all the performance data reported is for the current process used:

• 0.18um SiGe (RF front end) and CMOS(BB)

• Time to Market:– The performance data associated with total CMOS implementation

(e.g. 90nm, 130nm process) should be reported.

– Please address the availability of HB and duplex, joint bands

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Documents

Transcript of Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)