November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

Proposal

for the 5 criteria

for the 802.11 HT SG

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

What should we do?

Intention: Increased Throughput

Up to 2x improvement

Increased MAC efficiency

Means Ends

Higher PHY rate

5x improvement was presented

Higher PHY rate and improved MAC

Up to 10x

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

What should we remember?• It’s a higher throughput WLAN: interoperability with existing 802.11 a must

(differentiate from 802.15.3)

• Compare performance (throughput) at same range to balance user experience with installation considerations

• Scalability in cost and performance: Pay more to get more

• Improvements should exist for ALL users, including current equipment used (Broad market…)

• Beware of the “bleeding edge of technology”. Revolution is not the only way to effect a radical change!

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

1. Broad Market PotentialA) Broad sets of applicability

Large file transfer, home multimedia networks, video download or streaming and videoconferencing are but examples of applications in need of high throughput solutions. Today, cumbersome wired connections are usually used. At best, a wireless link poorly performs these tasks. The proposed standard is developed for these applications, and others.

B) Multiple vendors, numerous usersThe HT standard will be supported by the same vendor base and end users as the existing 802.11 standard. The 802.11 membership supporting this PAR is in itself a strong indication of that: A broad range of wireless industry leaders ranging from silicon vendors to system integrator are included.

C) Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations)Baseband processing as well as RF fronts are anticipated to change. The cost to achieve higher throughput depends on customer preference: greater throughput increases would cost more.

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

2. Compatibility

Changes to the 802.11 MAC shall be introduced in a way that will conform to 802.1 Architecture, Management and Internetworking documents: 802.1D, 802.1Q and relevant parts of 802.1f. Any variances in conformance, if any emerge, would be thoroughly disclosed and reviewed by 802.

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

3. Distinct identity

A) Substantially different from other 802 projectsThe throughputs provided will be significantly higher than any provided by other 802.11 standards, while offering performance improvement even using existing 802.11 standard based equipment. No other 802 standard is interoperable with existing 802.11 standards.

B) One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem)The PAR will define one higher throughput standard that is scalable in performance and interoperable with existing 802.11 standards.

C) Easy for document reader to select the relevant specificationThis will be a separately labeled 802.11 specification

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

4. Technical feasibility

A) demonstrated system feasibilitySeveral methods of increasing throughput up to 10x were presented, all using established technologies.

B) Proven technology, reasonable testingCandidate technologies are such that have been shown feasible using existing ASIC and RF technologies and tested to ensure actual benefits conform to theory.

C) Confidence in reliabilityAnalysis of existing products and proposals presented as candidates provide confidence in the reliability of proposed solutions. This data was partially presented in past meetings and the papers are available for review.

November 2002

Ziv Belsky, WavionSlide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/661r0

Submission

5. Economic feasibility

A) Known cost factors, reliable dataThe fundamental architecture of the candidate approaches is well understood. The process off adding signal processing capabilities, improving MAC algorithms or changing PHY functionality are well understood.

B) Reasonable cost for performanceThe proposed standard would scale in performance and cost so that cost-performance trade-off choices are possible and are subject to user preferences.

C) Consideration of installation costsInstallation costs will change but in a controlled manner, as upgrades to higher throughput could be performed selectively, only were demand for higher throughput exists.