Subject: [paws] Rural Network use case

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:37:13 -0400

Scott,

I appreciated your presentation on the Use Cases document last week in 
Quebec City.  However, there is one thing that I am not fully comfortable 
with in the Rural Network case.  Your assumption is that the rural networks 
will have been planned beforehand and frequencies will have been 
pre-assigned.  This does not correspond to the assumption that we used in 
the development of the IEEE 802.22 Standard.  The reason is that, in the 
context of a "license-exempt" ("unlicensed" in the US) environment where 
any competitor can come in and implement his base station and CPEs, a 
planned network implementation is possible in practice. Such pre-planning 
would apply to a frequency band licensed to a specific operator. 
Furthermore, protected low-power devices (e.g., wireless microphones) could 
pop up anywhere in the area and disable the frequencies that had been 
pre-planned for the network. No pre-planned frequency assignment of the 
networks in an area would allow an easy adaptation to such an event.

Recognizing such limitation, a technique by which the various cells will be 
able to talk to each other through a self-coexistence mechanism to exchange 
information on the frequencies that they use and that they have as backup 
channels in case their current channel is disabled all of a sudden has been 
included in the 802.22 Standard (see Clause 7.20 "Self-coexistence" in the 
802.22 Standard).  Additionally, information on how the same channel can be 
shared by a number of cells, in case where no other channel is available in 
the area, is exchanged between these cells to share the transmission 
capacity  among 802.22 WRAN cells on a frame-based TDM mechanism.

This should be reflected in either modifying the current rural case by 
removing the assumption of a pre-planned network or adding a new rural case 
where a self-coexistence mechanism would be assumed, while keepnig the 
current rural case for "licensed band" type operation.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Gerald

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:07:43 -0400

While use cases can discuss co-existence, that aspect is out of scope for our work at this time.  

Of course, preplanned use of frequencies wouldn't require a database query, so that would seem to be out of scope also.

I personally don't think there is much difference between urban, suburban and rural access in the part of the problem we are looking at in this work group.  The number of available channels might be larger, and the number of protected devices might be smaller, but that is just a scale issue: the database query would be the same, and the response would be the same (modulo the length of the available spectrum response).

Brian

On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Gerald Chouinard wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws

---

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:52:50 -0400

Brian,

I agree with you that co-existence is not currently part of the mandate of 
the PAWS Working Group, although the protocol that you are developing could 
be used for this purpose as an add-on if the proper parameters are included 
(see my earlier reference to the work that the IEEE 802.19.1 is doing to 
deal with this aspect).

My main point was that, in a license-exempt/unlicensed environment, 
assuming a pre-planned rural network does not hold because of the possible 
changes in the use of the spectrum by the primary users.  The fact that 
competing operations looking for the same spectrum can happen is
another reason for not assuming a static pre-planned frequency assignment 
for a rural network.

By the way, all the material that I presented last week on the database 
interface primitives that the IEEE 802.22 Working Group has developed is 
contained in Clause 10.6 of the recently published IEEE Std 802.22-2011. 
You will probably find that what I included in my presentation is most 
likely all what is needed to be considered by the IETF-PAWS in its work.

Gerald

At 09:07 02-08-11 -0400, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>Of course, preplanned use of frequencies wouldn't require a database 
>query, so that would seem to be out of scope also.
>
>I personally don't think there is much difference between urban, suburban 
>and rural access in the part of the problem we are looking at in this work 
>group.  The number of available channels might be larger, and the number 
>of protected devices might be smaller, but that is just a scale issue: the 
>database query would be the same, and the response would be the same 
>(modulo the length of the available spectrum response).
>
>Brian
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:22:04 +0100

Dear Brian

Agreed, we would not want to assume that the rural case will have pre-planned channels. 

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rosen, Brian
Sent: 02 August 2011 14:08
To: Gerald Chouinard
Cc: [email-masked]; Apurva Mody
Subject: Re: [paws] Rural Network use case

Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:29:08 +0000

Hi Gerald,

Reviewing section '3.3 Wide-Area or Rural internet broadband access', I
don¹t find any assumption of pre-assigned frequencies. There was no intent
to include this concept.

Could you please identify the text you are thinking of?

Regards,
Scott

On 8/2/11 11:22 AM, "ext [email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>and rural access in the part of the problem we are looking at in this
>work group.  The number of available channels might be larger, and the
>number of protected devices might be smaller, but that is just a scale
>issue: the database query would be the same, and the response would be
>the same (modulo the length of the available spectrum response).
>
>Brian
>

---

From: Gerald Chouinard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 18:00:33 -0400

Scott,

The text that I am referring to is as follows: "Many of the
masters/BS are assumed to be deployed and operated by a single entity,
i.e., there is coordination between many of the
master/BSs."

The first assumption, although possible, cannot be used in the context of
an "unlicensed" use of the band.  Any new comer that is
not part of the same entity will be allowed to operte and even compete
for the local spectrum.  However, the second assumption is correct
where some coordination between the local masters/BSs will be needed to
make the best use of the spectrum.  This has been built into the
802.22 WRAN standard through the "coexistence beacon protocol
(CBP)" which allows the BSs to exchange information, directly or
through its CPEs, on the channels being used, the backup channels that
would be used if an incumbent was to appear and which frames should be
used by which BS in case the same channel needs to be re-used.

Also, related to the previous sentence, operation of broadband access
WRANs is not limited to the casewherte there are "many available
radio channels" which would be the case in very remote rural
areas.  Such WRANs could also operate in rural areas close to urban
centers where less channels would be available by possibly sharing the
same channels as explained above.

I would suggest the following change to these two sentences:

"This deployment is typically characterized by one or more fixed
master(s)/BS(s), and many available radio channels. Many of the
masters/BS are assumed to be deployed and operated by a single entity,
i.e., there is It is assumed that coordination would
exist between many of the master/BSs to optimize the choice of
available channels."

Thank's,

Gerald

At 14:29 03-08-11 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:

Hi Gerald,

Reviewing section '3.3 Wide-Area or Rural internet broadband access',
I

don¹t find any assumption of pre-assigned frequencies. There was no
intent

to include this concept.

Regards,

Scott

On 8/2/11 11:22 AM, "ext [email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>

>Agreed, we would not want to assume that the rural case will
have

>pre-planned channels.

>From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of

>Rosen, Brian

>While use cases can discuss co-existence, that aspect is out of scope
for

>our work at this time.

>> Quebec City.  However, there is one thing that I am not
fully

>>comfortable

>> with in the Rural Network case.  Your assumption is that
the rural

>>networks

>> pre-assigned.  This does not correspond to the assumption
that we used

>>in

>> the development of the IEEE 802.22 Standard.  The reason is
that, in

>>the

>> context of a "license-exempt" ("unlicensed"
in the US) environment

>>where

>> planned network implementation is possible in practice.
Such

>>pre-planning

>> Furthermore, protected low-power devices (e.g., wireless
microphones)

>>could

>> Recognizing such limitation, a technique by which the various
cells

>>will be

>> able to talk to each other through a self-coexistence mechanism
to

>>exchange

>> information on the frequencies that they use and that they have
as

>>backup

>> channels in case their current channel is disabled all of a
sudden has

>>been

>> included in the 802.22 Standard (see Clause 7.20
"Self-coexistence" in

>>the

>> 802.22 Standard).  Additionally, information on how the
same channel

>>can be

>> shared by a number of cells, in case where no other channel
is

>>available in

>> removing the assumption of a pre-planned network or adding a new
rural

>>case