15-04-0255-00-003a-proposal-comparison-summary.ppt

275 views
261 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
275
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

15-04-0255-00-003a-proposal-comparison-summary.ppt

  1. 1. Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Proposal Comparison Summary] Date Submitted: [May 12, 2004 Source: [Matt Welborn] Company [Freescale Semiconductor] Address [8133 Leesburg Pike Vienna, VA USA] Voice:[703-269-3000], E-Mail:[mwelborn@xtremespectrum.com] Re: Abstract: [Summarize the two PHY proposals with respect to the requirements described in the TG3a Selection criteria document.] Purpose: [ Provide technical information to the TG3a voters regarding PHY proposals.] 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.
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Goal: Summarize the two proposals with respect to the requirements described in the TG3a Selection criteria document </li></ul><ul><li>Approach: Collect reported results from the various proposal documents and requirements from selection criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Disclaimer: The author of this document is also one of the authors of the DS-UWB (Merger #2) proposal. Opinions/comments are so labeled </li></ul>
  3. 3. Source Documents <ul><li>Merger #1: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>03/268r3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>04/220 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Merger #2: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>04/137r2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>04/099r2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>04/140r4 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Selection Criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>03/031r11 </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. 3.1 Unit Manufacturing Cost Based on conversion from reported 295k gates at 132 MHz <ul><li>Comments: </li></ul><ul><li>Similar requirements for major external components </li></ul><ul><li>Similar semiconductor process technologies </li></ul>183-204k gates at 85.5 MHz 455k gates at 85.5 MHz The cost/complexity of the device must be as minimal as possible [sic] for use in the personal area space, see [03/030]. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  5. 5. 3.2.2 Interference & Susceptibility The proposal meets all of the minimum & desired values The proposal does not meet the minimum requirement for 802.11a interference for BG2 (optional) <ul><li>Comments: </li></ul><ul><li>Optional modes </li></ul>Mandatory mode: The proposal meets all of the minimum & desired values Mandatory mode: The proposal meets all of the minimum & desired values Susceptibility of UWB Receiver to radiation from other systems DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  6. 6. 3.2.2.6-7 Generic In-band Interference <ul><li>Additional rejection possible & feasible using RFI extraction </li></ul><ul><li>More protection in optional high band </li></ul><ul><li>Required erasure decoding of impacted bits </li></ul><ul><li>No data for performance without erasures </li></ul>Comments: Minimum value is P I -P d >3 dB at 6 dB above sensitivity The proposal meets all of the minimum values The proposal meets all of the minimum values … using simulation results, analysis, or technical explanations, determine the average received interference power that can be tolerated by the receiver, … DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  7. 7. 3.2.3 Coexistence Optional mode: All the victim receivers specified in the selection criteria document are essentially out-of-band <ul><li>Dynamic turning off of tones proposed for enhanced coexistence </li></ul><ul><li>802.11a not out-of-band for optional BG2- no data given </li></ul>Comments All the victim receivers specified in the selection criteria document are essentially out-of-band All the victim receivers specified in the selection criteria document are essentially out-of-band Coexistence, in this context, refers to the co-location of IEEE P802.15.3a devices with other, non-P802.15.3a devices. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  8. 8. 3.3.1 Manufacturability <ul><li>Comments: </li></ul><ul><li>The proposers are asked to submit proof of the claims by way of expert opinion, models, experiments, pre-existence examples, or demonstrations. </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated solutions are already available </li></ul><ul><li>Works in 180 nm CMOS – No Risk </li></ul><ul><li>“ The proposed UWB solution will leverage current standard CMOS technology .” </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed for 130 or 90 nm CMOS </li></ul><ul><li>“ In addition, the digital section of the proposed PHY is similar to that of conventional and mature OFDM solutions, such as 802.11a and 802.11g.” </li></ul>Manufacturability is defined in terms of the use of mature, cost effective manufacturing processes with evidence of effective mass production capability. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  9. 9. 3.2.2 Time to Market Comments: <ul><li>Full integrated system available now. </li></ul><ul><li>Validated PHY (RF & BaseBand) </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated with MAC & upper layer protocol stack </li></ul>“ The earliest a complete CMOS PHY solution would be ready for integration is by the first half of 2005.” Time to Market addresses the question of when the proposed technology will be ready for integration. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  10. 10. 3.3.3 Regulatory Impact <ul><li>Comments: </li></ul><ul><li>Rules are only known for US region </li></ul><ul><li>Fully Approved </li></ul><ul><li>No known issues with US UWB rules under CFR Part 15 </li></ul>“ The FCC respects the need to resolve the rules interpretation issue quickly and is doing everything they can to progress in a timely manner.” The proposal should specify to which geopolitical regions it applies and identify any applicable requirements with which it conflicts. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  11. 11. 3.4 Scalability <ul><li>Also scales to 660, 1000 and 1320 Gbps </li></ul><ul><li>Does not scale to >480 Mbps </li></ul><ul><li>Requires notching or pre-computing new acquisition preamble for dynamic BW </li></ul>Comments: Proposers are further encouraged to show scalability up to 480 Mb/s and beyond, as well as 110Mb/s and below, as consistent with the table of applications in Section 2 of [03/030]. <ul><li>Same as MB-OFDM (except for tones) </li></ul><ul><li>Power consumption & complexity scale to different multipath conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Scales power consumption, range and complexity versus data rate </li></ul><ul><li>Scale to higher frequency bands </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic BW by turning on/off tones </li></ul>Scalability refers to the ability to adjust important parameters, such as those mentioned below, (if they are required by the applications) without rewriting the standard. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  12. 12. 3.5 Location Awareness <ul><li>Corresponds to 17 cm and 9 cm range resolution </li></ul><ul><li>Simple – Radio works in time domain </li></ul>1/528 MHz = 1.9 ns ~= 57 cm? 1/1584 MHz = 631 ps ~= 19 cm? Comments: Time resolution for TOA is inversely proportional to signal bandwidth DSP can somewhat improve range resolution for both, bandwidth is still a fundamental limit. <ul><li>Low band coherent bandwidth is1723 MHz </li></ul><ul><li>High band coherent bandwidth is 3447 MHz </li></ul>“ The total bandwidth of a Mode 1 Multi-band OFDM system is 1584 MHz, thus the accuracy that can be obtained for the location awareness is at least 10 cm.” The proposal should specify to which geopolitical regions it applies and identify any applicable requirements with which it conflicts. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  13. 13. 4.1 Alternate PHY Required MAC Enhancements and Modifications <ul><li>Not yet detailed: </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic band & tone configuration </li></ul>Comments Support for channelization using spreading codes & chip rate offsets Support for channelization using Time-Frequency Codes Supplements and modifications to the MAC may be required to accommodate the alternate PHY. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  14. 14. 5.1 Size and Form Factor <ul><li>Proven Solutions for the PCMCIA size are available now. </li></ul><ul><li>Size reduction to memory stick, and SD will be available in 2004 </li></ul>“ Solutions for the PC card, compact flash, memory stick, and SD memory will be available in 2005” <ul><li>Proposers shall provide a time line estimate of when their proposed PHY and the P802.15.3 MAC will fit into the following form factors: </li></ul><ul><li>PC Card </li></ul><ul><li>Compact Flash </li></ul><ul><li>Memory Stick </li></ul><ul><li>SD Memory </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  15. 15. 5.2 PHY-SAP Payload bit-rate and Data Throughput Throughputs of 24-698 Mbps using single and multiple frames @ 1024 octet packets Throughputs of 26-1080 Mbps @ 4096 octets Throughputs of 47-259 Mbps using single and multiple frames @ 1024 octet packets Throughputs of 53-398 Mbps @ 4024 octets Throughput values: <ul><li>Required 110 and 220 Mbps rates are provided </li></ul><ul><li>Higher bit rates of 480, 660, 1000, & 1320 Mbps provided </li></ul><ul><li>Required 110 and 200 Mbps rates are provided </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum bit rate of 480 Mbps </li></ul>The proposer should provide the payload bit rates to meet the mandatory and optional payload bit rates for the PHY-SAP as defined in clause 2 of [03/030]. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  16. 16. 5.3 Simultaneously Operating Piconets <ul><li>At 110 Mbps: </li></ul><ul><li>Distance ratios of 0.64 to 1.24 for 1-3 interferers </li></ul><ul><li>At 220 Mbps (AWGN): </li></ul><ul><li>Distance ratios of 0.9 to 1.6 for 1-3 interferers </li></ul><ul><li>At 500 Mbps (AWGN): </li></ul><ul><li>Distance ratios of 2.2 to 3.3 for 1-2 interferers </li></ul><ul><li>At 110 Mbps: </li></ul><ul><li>Distance ratios of 0.4 to 1.9 for 1-3 interferers </li></ul><ul><li>No data provided for SOP performance at 200 & 480 Mbps </li></ul><ul><li>The proposal should evaluate the effect of simultaneously operating piconets as specified in clause 3 of [03/030] for the following specified parameters: </li></ul><ul><li>Packet length of 1024 octet frame body </li></ul><ul><li>PHY-SAP bit rates (110 Mb/s, 200 Mb/s and the optional 480 Mb/s) </li></ul><ul><li>Random initial symbol alignment between reference link and interferers </li></ul><ul><li>Supports 6 piconets in the low frequency band </li></ul><ul><li>Supports 4 piconets in the lowest frequency band group (Mode I) </li></ul>DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  17. 17. 5.4 Signal Acquisition Results not yet provided for revised proposal Results not yet provided for revised proposal The proposer should provide the false alarm probability and the miss detect probability for the proposed preamble design in both AWGN and the environment specified by the channel model in document [02/490]. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  18. 18. 5.5 System Performance Comments: The proposal meets the minimum values for 90% outage ranges for AWGN and multipath: 10 m @ 110 Mbps 4 m @ 200 Mbps The proposal meets the minimum values for 90% outage ranges in AWGN and multipath: 10 m @ 110 Mbps 4 m @ 200 Mbps System performance refers to the ability of the system to successfully acquire and demodulate data packets at the required data rates and bit and packet error rates… DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  19. 19. 5.6 Link Budget 5.2 dB @ 110 Mbps and 10 meters 6.0 dB @ 110 Mbps and 10 meters 10.2 dB @ 220 Mbps and 4 meters 10.7 dB @ 200 Mbps and 4 meters 11.2 dB @ 500 Mbps and 2 meters 12.2 dB @ 480 Mbps and 2 meters <ul><li>Includes transmit power back-off of 0-1.9 dB </li></ul><ul><li>Rate ¾ punctured FEC gain of 4.7 dB is likely not achievable </li></ul><ul><li>Includes no transmit power back-off </li></ul>Comments 8.2 dB @ 1000 Mbps and 2 meters Link budget is used to determine proposal capabilities under certain operating conditions for the standards specified bit rates, ranges, and bit error rate. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  20. 20. 5.7 Sensitivity -68.4 dBm @ 1 Gbps -79.5 dBm @ 110 Mbps -80.5 dBm @ 110 Mbps -76.5 dBm @ 220 Mbps -77.2 dBm @ 200 Mbps Comments: -71.4 dBm @ 500 Mbps -72.7 dBm @ 480 Mbps The proposal should indicate the power level at which the error criterion is met, consistent with the link budget as presented in document [02/490], Table 1. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  21. 21. 5.8 Power Management Modes Comments: The proposed PHY system will support all of the power managements modes defined the IEEE 802.15.3 draft standard. “ The proposed PHY system shall support all of the power managements modes (ACTIVE, PSPS, SPS, and HIBERNATE) defined the IEEE 802.15.3 draft standard. ” The proposal should explain if it supports each of the power management methods as defined in the proposed 802.15.3 standard. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  22. 22. 5.9 PHY Power Consumption Comments: <ul><li>Power estimates not yet complete for fully-digital architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Digital gate count is about 50% < MB-OFDM </li></ul><ul><li>Analog has no DAC and no hopping. </li></ul><ul><li>3-bit A/D @ 1.4GHz is about the same as ~ 4/5-bit 528 MHz A/D </li></ul><ul><li>Overall, DS-UWB has the advantage </li></ul><ul><li>90 nm: </li></ul><ul><li>93-145 mW transmit </li></ul><ul><li>155-236 mW receive </li></ul><ul><li>130 nm: </li></ul><ul><li>117-180 mW transmit </li></ul><ul><li>205-323 mW receive </li></ul>Power consumption is defined as the total average power required by the proposed system to operate in transmit, receive, clear channel assessment, or power saving modes. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion
  23. 23. 5.10 Antenna Practicality Both systems occupy essentially the same frequency band in their baseline modes. Comments Same as for MB-OFDM. Four different antenna designs tested with system “ A 16 mm  13.6 mm x 3 mm antenna with similar characteristics is already commercially available at a low cost and can meet many of the form factors specified in the selection criteria document.” Antenna form factor should be described with reference to expected size. DS-UWB MB-OFDM Selection Criterion

×