DL: AP STA traffic – P2P traffic (tethering, Soft-APs, TDLS) management (generating management traffic such as probes/beacons) ‘Idle’ Power model List of PHY, MAC, Management parameters We may want to fix the value of some parameters to limit the degrees of freedom, and for calibration Optionally, some STAs may use legacy (11n/ac) operation parameters, if required to prove effectiveness of selected HEW solutions An interfering scenario (its performance optionally tracked) Not managed or managed by a different entity than the one of the main scenario Defined by its own Topology, Traffic and parameters Per each of above items, the scenario description defines a detailed list of parameters and corresponding values. Values not specified can be set to any Values included in square brackets [] are default values to be used for calibration. All parameters values not included in [], are to be considered mandatory for performance evaluation. Simulation results should be presented together with the specification of the value used per each of the parameters in the tables. Notes on this version This document builds on document 13/1001r9, which was developed during the HEW SG phase. The document consolidates contributions on scenarios details from various authors and reflects the comments/submissions received. It is not a final version by any means and is subject to changes based on further discussion and feedback. TBDs Traffic models Channel models an penetration losses per scenario Not agreement on which channel models to be used in each scenario; some tentative included in the document Calibration scenarios; Some other topics under discussion refer to simulation methodology/parameters that can be common and fixed across all scenarios, hence they may be directly included in the Evaluation Methodology document or in an appendix of this documents Rate adaptation model Use of wrap around for scenarios 3 and 4? Discussion is needed; Use of wrap around with CSMA may create artefacts Is the position of STAs randomly generated by each simulation run, or ‘random’ are we to have a file with common positions? Several channel model and RF related parameters that are likely to be common and fixed across scenarios see #1383
DL: AP – STA traffic P2P traffic (tethering, Soft-APs, TDLS) ‘Idle’ management (generating management traffic such as probes/beacons) Power model List of PHY, MAC, Management parameters We may want to fix the value of some parameters to limit the degrees of freedom, and for calibration Optionally, some STAs may use legacy (11n/ac) operation parameters, if required to prove effectiveness of selected HEW solutions An interfering scenario (its performance optionally tracked) Not managed or managed by a different entity than the one of the main scenario Defined by its own Topology, Traffic and parameters Per each of above items, the scenario description defines a detailed list of parameters and corresponding values. Values not specified can be set to any Values included in square brackets [] are default values to be used for calibration. All parameters values not included in [], are to be considered mandatory for performance evaluation. Simulation results should be presented together with the specification of the value used per each of the parameters in the tables. Notes on this version This document builds on document 13/1001r9, which was developed during the HEW SG phase. The document consolidates contributions on scenarios details from various authors and reflects the comments/submissions received. It is not a final version by any means and is subject to changes based on further discussion and feedback. TBDs Traffic models Channel models an penetration losses per scenario Not agreement on which channel models to be used in each scenario; some tentative included in the document Calibration scenarios; Some other topics under discussion refer to simulation methodology/parameters that can be common and fixed across all scenarios, hence they may be directly included in the Evaluation Methodology document or in an appendix of this documents Rate adaptation model Use of wrap around for scenarios 3 and 4? Discussion is needed; Use of wrap around with CSMA may create artefacts Is the ‘random’ position of STAs randomly generated by each simulation run, or are we to have a file with common positions? Several channel model and RF related parameters that are likely to be common and fixed across scenarios see #1383
11-14-0980-14-00ax-simulation-scenarios.docx