doc.: ieee 802.11-10/0455r2 submission april 2010 bruce kraemer, marvellslide 1 +1 (321) 427-4098...

April 2010

Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

+1 (321)427-4098

5488 Marvell Lane,Santa Clara, CA, 95054

Name Company Address Phone email Bruce Kraemer Marvell

[email protected]

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - April 2010

Date: 2010-4-28Authors:

Abstract: Information on Smart Grid of interest to WG11 – April-May 2010

April 2010


Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Introduction• Ad Hoc Committee rules

– No call for essential patents

– AHC, is a "committee of the whole" of the WG - i.e. any WG member can contribute; in practice, anybody who turns up can speak

– During f2f meetings, you can hold formal votes of only the voting members of 802.11; on a telecon you can take straw polls, but not formal votes

• Required notices– Affiliation FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html

– Anti-Trust FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf

– Ethics - http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf

– IEEE 802.11 Working Group Policies and Procedures - https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-0360-04-0000-802-11-policies-and-procedures.doc

April 2010


Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Introduction• Request for recording secretary

• Request for ad hoc chair

April 2010


Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Agenda Topics – Tuesday April 28Planned topics:

1. Questions on terms and calculations

2. Update on NIST PAP#2 modeling & report

3. Any other items?

4. Topics for next call (May 12)

Report draft

NIST report/model updates

Propagation model options

Question responses

April 2010


Slide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

April 2010


Slide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.1 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data;

• 2.1 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data;• What is the meaning of Data? It is in measurement units of Maximum user data rate per

user in Mb/s.• Since 802.15.4 gives 0.25 Mb/s one might assume that it is the physical medium rate.

However with that assumption, it does not apply to the value for 802.11 of 0.70 Mb/s.• Therefore one must assume another meaning. For example data rate minus protocol

(and/or framing) overhead results in 0.70 Mb/s (i.e., maximum user data rate (i.e., MAC Service Data Unit)), if so then the 802.15.4 value must be changed to comply with that assumption.

• Agreement on a consistent meaning of Data is needed.• Is it the maximum user data rate seen at the interface to/from the MAC sublayer?• Is it an instantaneous data rate?• Since it states Maximum user data rate per user, perhaps the number of users that was

assumed for the calculation needs to be stated as well, especially when the medium is shared as in 802.11 and 802.15.4.

April 2010


Slide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.2 Group 5: Data Rates, items a and b (Peak over the air UL/DL data rate)

• 2.2 Group 5: Data Rates, items a and b (Peak over the air UL/DL data rate)

• Values entered appear to be the physical layer date rate.

• Is this correct?

April 2010


Slide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.3 Group 5: Data Rates items c and d (Peak goodput over the air UL/DL data rate)

• How is the goodput calculated?

• Is goodput strictly calculated on a single MAC sublayer frame’s payload divided by the resulting physical layer packet?

• Is the goodput calculated including any CSMA overhead and the entire message exchange (e.g., data frame and acknowledgement frame)?

• Both 802.11 and 802.15.4 can act as either peer to peer (p2p) or AP to/from STA for 802.11 or coordinator to/from device for 802.15.4. So for the peer case UL and DL would be the same. However for the non-P2P case UL and DL might be different. Both 802.11 and 802.15 use the same channel in this case, but the protocol overhead might be different (e.g., polling a PAN coordinator to retreive data vs device sending to PAN coordinator for 802.15.4). Clarification (i.e., note) on the type of mode that is being used to achieve the values for the data rates is needed.

April 2010


Slide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.3.2 Sample peak goodput for 802.11 baseline

• Was not able to obtain 0.7 Mb/s, assuming only data transmission overhead for one data frame transmission and its associated acknoledgement. What other additional overhead assumptions were assumed? Beacon transmission? RTS/CTS? Association and authentication procedures?

• 2.3.2.1 (A)• Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + zero backoff + long

preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead + 2312 bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF; a peak throughput of 0.959 Mb/s.

• 2.3.2.2 (B)• Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + 15.5 backoff slots

(average first attempt successful)+ long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead + 2312 bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF and DS; a peak throughput of 0.944 Mb/s.

April 2010


Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.4 Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size

What is meant by frame?What is meant by packet?Are they the same or different?

April 2010


Slide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

2.4 Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size

What is meant by frame?There are three primary Frame group types identified in 802.11Management, Control & Data. Payload data is transported inside a data frame. The Data Frame is composed of a number of sub fields: control field, duration field, address fields, sequence field, data, frame check sequence. This collection of fields is referred to as a MAC Protocol Data Unit (MPDU). The source payload data may fit into one frame or if larger than 2312 bytes requires fragmentation and transmission using multiple data frames.

When the MPDU is prepared to send out over the air there are additional fields added for preamble, start of frame delimiter and header. These fields then comprise the Physical Layer Packet Data Unit (PPDU).

What is meant by packet?“Packet” is a general term that refers to the combination of control, address, and data fields described above that includes the payload data of interest .

Are they the same or different?When the terms Packet and Frame are used without further qualifiers they can be considered to be equivalent.

April 2010


Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

MPDU Structure

• A question of how much detail to provide?

• How to account for variables such as security options?

MAC Header Variable length frame body containing payload data Frame Check Sequence

Preamble Header MPDU

PPDU Structure

April 2010


Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Short list of citations on Throughput

• Churong Chen; Choi Look Law; , "Throughput performance analysis and experimental evaluation of IEEE 802.11b radio link," Information, Communications & Signal Processing, 2007 6th International Conference on , vol., no., pp.1-5, 10-13 Dec. 2007doi: 10.1109/ICICS.2007.4449813URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4449813&isnumber=4449533

Na, C.; Chen, J.K.; Rappaport, T.S.; , "Measured Traffic Statistics and Throughput of IEEE 802.11b Public WLAN Hotspots with Three Different Applications," Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on , vol.5, no.11, pp.3296-3305, November 2006doi: 10.1109/TWC.2006.05043URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4027799&isnumber=4027759

Garg, S.; Kappes, M.; , "An experimental study of throughput for UDP and VoIP traffic in IEEE 802.11b networks," Wireless Communications and Networking, 2003. WCNC 2003. 2003 IEEE , vol.3, no., pp.1748-1753 vol.3, 20-20 March 2003doi: 10.1109/WCNC.2003.1200651URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1200651&isnumber=27030

Bruno, R.; Conti, M.; Gregori, E.; , "Throughput Analysis of UDP and TCP Flows in IEEE 802.11b WLANs: A Simple Model and Its Validation," Techniques, Methodologies and Tools for Performance Evaluation of Complex Systems, 2005. (FIRB-Perf 2005). 2005 Workshop on , vol., no., pp. 54- 63, 19-19 Sept. 2005doi: 10.1109/FIRB-PERF.2005.20URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1587695&isnumber=33459

Mahasukhon, P.; Hempel, M.; Song Ci; Sharif, H.; , "Comparison of Throughput Performance for the IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g Networks," Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2007. AINA '07. 21st International Conference on , vol., no., pp.792-799, 21-23 May 2007doi: 10.1109/AINA.2007.46URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4220972&isnumber=4220857

Bruno, R.; Conti, M.; Gregori, E.; , "IEEE 802.11 optimal performances: RTS/CTS mechanism vs. basic access," Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2002. The 13th IEEE International Symposium on , vol.4, no., pp. 1747- 1751 vol.4, 15-18 Sept. 2002URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1045479&isnumber=22399

April 2010


Slide 14

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Throughput Question

• 2.3.2.1 (A)

• Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + zero backoff + long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead + 2312 bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF; a peak throughput of 0.959 Mb/s

• Again, how much detail to provide?

• What is precise enough?

• How to account for theory vs practice?

April 2010


Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Example 1: 11b 2Mbps Measured Throughput

page 45 Open WEP 40 WEP 128 TKIP/PEAP CCMP/PEAPrates 1570.3 1559.3 1555.6 1524.2 1551.2

% 78.5% 78.0% 77.8% 76.2% 77.6%

Security Protocol

Analyzing Wireless LAN Security OverheadHarold Lars McCarterThesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering17-Apr-06Falls Church, Virginiahttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04202006-080941/unrestricted/mccarter_thesis.pdf

April 2010


Slide 16

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Example 2: Various 802.11 Reported Throughputs

802.11g and 802.11a Modulation and Coding Options 802.11g and 802.11a Modulation and Coding Optionsover payload over payloadthe Code theair rate air

(Mbps) (Mbps) (%) (Mbps) (Mbps) (%)BPSK 1 0.81 81% BPSK 1/2 6 4.64 77%QPSK 2 1.58 79% BPSK 3/4 9 6.55 73%CCK 5.5 4.07 74% QPSK 1/2 12 8.31 69%CCK 11 7.18 65% QPSK 3/4 18 11.5 64%

16-QAM 1/2 24 14.18 59%avg 74.8% 16-QAM 3/4 36 18.31 51%

64-QAM 1/2 48 23.25 48%64-QAM 3/4 54 26.12 48%

avg 61%

Huawei Quidway WA1006E Wireless Access Point http://www.sersat.com/descarga/quidway_wa1006e.pdf

April 2010


Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

NIST Models

• As of April 28th, the March 31st models and write-ups still in process and have not yet been posted to the NIST Twiki site.

• Bruce is looking into Propagation models to consider exponents to use in different scenarios e.g. urban canyon versus rural.

April 2010


Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Report Outline• Table of Contents• Revision History ......................................................................................................................................... - 3 -• Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... - 4 -• Authors ...................................................................................................................................................... - 5 -• Acronyms................................................................................................................................................... - 6 -• Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. - 9 -• Overview of the "process" ......................................................................................................................... - 13 -• Reference Architecture ............................................................................................................................. - 14 -• Use Cases ............................................................................................................................................... - 16 -• Application requirements .......................................................................................................................... - 17 -• Wireless Technology................................................................................................................................ - 18 -• Evaluation approach / Modeling approach................................................................................................ - 19 -• Channel Models....................................................................................................................................... - 20 -• Modeling Tool .......................................................................................................................................... - 21 -• Findings / Results .................................................................................................................................... - 22 -• Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. - 23 -• References............................................................................................................................................... - 24 -

Wireless Technologysee wireless spreadsheet*Bruce will generate an example for everyone else to followCreate naritives for the content of the contents of the spreedsheetDSSS vs FHSS vs OFDMsecurity

April 2010


Slide 19

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

April 2010


Slide 20

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

March 31 update Meeting held at NIST Gaithersburg MD campus

April 2010


Slide 21

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Reference Links

• Entry point to NIST Twiki

• http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

• Priority Action Plans

• http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans

• Priority Action Plan #2 - Wireless

• http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless

April 2010


Slide 22

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Meeting Structure

• Part 1: Deriving model input parameters– User application requirements– Protocol considerations– Traffic aggregation

• Part 2: New models and extensions– Range extension with multi-hop – Physical layer model extensions

• Results

– MAC model extensions• Results

March 31 NIST Meeting

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt

April 2010


Slide 23

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

March 31st material

• PAP 2 meeting, NIST Gaithersburg, March 31, 2010:

• A face to face meeting for PAP 2 was held on March 31, 2010 at NIST Gaithersburg.

•

• Meeting documents:

• PAP2March.ppt: Meeting Agenda

• March31NISTPresentation.ppt: NIST presentation

April 2010


Slide 24

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Updated NIST Models

• Tools provided by NIST and used in presentation PAP2modeling.ppt

• nist_80211_mac.m: Matlab code for 80211_MAC_Model

• nist_80211_MAC_readme.pdf: Readme file for using the 802.11 model Matlab code

• SNRcdf.m: Matlab code for computing SNR probability at wireless receiver

• SNRcdfCell.m: Matlab code for coverage analysis

• nist_phy_model_readme.pdf: Readme file for using Matlab code for SNRcdf and SNRcdfCell

• nist_channel_propagation_models.pdf: Channel propagation models

April 2010


Slide 25

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Provided User Applications(OpenSG – SG Network System Requirements Specification v2.1.xls )

• Meter Reading (MR)– Bulk meter read– Multiple interval meter read– On-demand meter read– Error messages

• Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)– Charging price rates– Negotiate power charging rate– Charging status– PHEV VIN information– Error messages

• Service Switch (SS)– Cancel service switch operate– Service switch operate– Switch state– Service switch operate acknowledge– Metrology information– Service switch state data– Error messages


Example run so far

Who, When?

Who, When?

April 2010


Slide 26

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

An example selection

• Presentation

• Session

• Transport

• Network

• Data Link

• Physical

• None

• None

• TCP– TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246)

• IPv6– IPsec (RFC 4303)

• IEEE 802.11– CCMP

• DSSS (1Mb/s)


April 2010


Slide 27

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Resulting Data Message sizes (for this selection)

• On-demand meter read 100 bytes• TLS 25 bytes• Transport TCP 20 bytes• IP-SEC (Tunnel mode) 80 bytes• IPv6 40 bytes• IEEE 802.11 CCMP 16 bytes• IEEE 802.11 28 bytes• DSSS 24 bytes

– ----------------------------------------------------------------------• TOTALS 333 bytes• Similarly for Application Error on-demand meter read

– TOTALS 283 bytes• Similarly for Multiple interval meter read

– TOTALS 1833 bytes - 2833 bytes*• *Exceeds MTU of 802.11 must segment into two frames


April 2010


Slide 28

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Example link calculation: AMI Head End → DAP

AMIHeadEnd

DAP

MR-14: 25/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes

MR-16: 25/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes

PHEV-04: 4 events/meter/day, 255 bytes

PHEV-11: 1/1000 events/meter/day, 50 bytes

PHEV-15: 4*150/1000 events/meter/day, 100 bytes

PHEV-19: 1 events/meter/day, 50 bytes

SS-10: 2/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes



Total: 5.753 events/meter/day = 6.7 × 10-5 events/meter/s

25 25 1 150 2 50 504 4 * 1

1000 1000 1000 1000 125 25 2

000 1000 1055 50 100 50 25 25 25

005753

* + * + * +

100

* + * + * + * + * + *=197.1

0

bytesMean message size:


April 2010


Slide 29

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

March 31 Evaluation Model Updates

• Multi-hop topologies

• Interference modeling

• Power-control and no-power-control options

• Half-duplex link model


April 2010


Slide 30

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Example: Outage Probability vs. Distance

Device ParametersEIRP (dBm)Rx antenna gain, Gr (dBi)Data rate = 1 Mb/sCarrier freq = 2.4 GHz(Eb/N0)req = 10.4 dBNoise figure = 5 dBSystem loss = 1.5 dB

Channel ParametersShadowing std dev, (dB)Nakagami parameter, mPath loss exponent n0 = 2Path loss exponent n1 = 4Breakpoint dist = 10 mNoise psd = -173.9 dBm/Hz

101

102

103

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

Distance, Rmax

(m)

Out

age

prob

abili

ty

EIRP=25 dBm, Gr=5 dBi, =8, m=1



511 m266 m133 m


April 2010


Slide 31

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Expanded MAC model

• MAC model has been expanded to include uplink (station to AP) and downlink (AP to station traffic). This concept was developed in the paper by Jin et al.

• Links are half-duplex, e.g. when the AP is transmitting it is not able to receive any packets; any station that transmits will experience packet loss, even if there are no collisions with other stations.

• Model now requires solving 4 coupled nonlinear equations instead of the 2 equations in standard Bianchi-based approaches. We use steepest descent to get the probabilities that the stations and AP are transmitting, STA and AP, within an iterative loop that gets the probabilities that the stations and AP respectively do not have any packets to send, p0STA

and p0AP.


April 2010


Slide 32

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

18.7 ms4.5 ms

Performance results• Population of 1000 meters, groups of 25 communicate with each DAP. 40 DAPs communicate with

the Head End.• Network loading was very light, reliability on every link, in both directions, was 1.• Diagram below shows mean delay in each direction for each link.

MDMS

NMS

CIS/Billing

LMS

DSM

DMS

DAPAMI HeadEnd SM

Cust. EMS

IHD

3.0 ms

3.4 ms2.8 ms

3.4 ms4.6 ms

3.4 ms2.8 ms

3.0 ms

3.4 ms

X 40

X 25

9.4 ms4.2 ms PHEV

Assume that IHD, PHEV, and EMS contend for the same channel, so that their combined rate is 4.8×10-4 arrivals/s and the mean message size is 61.3 bytes.

3.1 ms3.6 ms

OperationsCustomer


April 2010


Slide 33

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Update Summary • Initial model released as Matlab code (.m file)• Verified it can also run on OctaveAs of March 31st - Significant expansion to model• (posted on NIST Twiki site -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless#Status_of_PAP02_Wireless_Communi )

• Need to review “channel model”• Need to continue running examples• Need to look for any other changes to model that would• Power group definition of “what we need to know” being

prepared

• Next week – further review of use cases

April 2010


Slide 34

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Future NIST Events• SGIP Upcoming Meetings & Events

May 6, 2010• PAP 2 session at OpenSG Users Group, McLean , VA, • A PAP 2 session will be held jointly with OpenSG SG-NET on May 6, 2010,

starting at 8am until 3pm. • Meeting related information including registration, hotel information, and

directions are found here: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/WDC2010/default.aspx

May 24-27• SGIP Face-to-Face Meeting in Santa Clara, CA. For details and registration,

click here.

• For the SGIP 2010 Calendar of meeting and event details, click here.

April 2010


Slide 35

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Background on NIST PAP#2

April 2010


Slide 36

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

NIST PAP#2

• NIST is going to use (require) a model to demonstrate performance when operating in typical Smart Grid domains

• Details are to be found at the URL on Slide 2

• Goal today is to develop response and action plan for June

April 2010


Slide 37

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Background• The NIST interoperability process identifies a number of high

priority issues including the role of IP and the use of wireless communications:– April 2009 workshop

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop1

– May 2009 workshop

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop2

– EPRI report to NIST, June 2009

http://nist.gov/smartgrid/InterimSmartGridRoadmapNISTRestructure.pdf

• NIST convenes an SDO workshop in August 2009 in order to develop plans to address priority issues

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/PriorityActionPlans

April 2010


Slide 38

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

The Current Priority Action Plans0 Meter Upgradeability Standard 1 Role of IP in the Smart Grid 2 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid 3 Common Price Communication Model 4 Common Scheduling Mechanism 5 Standard Meter Data Profiles 6 Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables 7 Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines 8 CIM for Distribution Grid Management 9 Standard DR and DER Signals 10 Standard Energy Usage Information 11 Common Object Models for Electric Transportation 12 IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping 13

Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization

14 Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping 15

Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home

16 Wind Plant Communications

April 2010


Slide 39

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Issue: Use of Wireless Communications in the Smart Grid

• There are a number of advantages for using wireless communications including:– Untethered access to information– Mobility– Interoperability – Reduced cost and complexity– Availability of technologies with different characteristics

to choose from• A number of challenges remain to be addressed:

– How to choose among technologies with different characteristics?

– How do we know which technology to use for what Smart Grid application?

– Are there any implications for using a certain wireless technology in a certain environment?

– Are there any deployment? Interference issues?

April 2010


Slide 40

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission 40

Review of PAP#2 tasks1. Develop Smart Grid application communication requirements and devise a

taxonomy for applications with similar network requirements

– Draft under development and available for review http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/app_matrix_pap.xls

2. Develop terminology and definitions3. Compile and communicate use cases and develop requirements

– is part of Task 14. Create an attribute list and performance metrics for wireless standards

– Draft developed and available for reviewhttp://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_PAP2-_Wireless_Characteristics-IEEE802-v_02.xls

5. Create an inventory of wireless technologies and standards that are identified by each SDO

– Feedback is expected by December 6, 2009.6. Conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the

application requirements

– Perform a gap analysis and developing guidelines for the use of wireless technologies.

40

April 2010


Slide 41

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Approach to PAP#2 Task #6Task 6 is to perform the mapping and conduct an evaluation of the

wireless technologies based on the application communication requirements developed in Task 1 and the inventory of wireless technologies and their associated characteristics collected in Task 5.

• During the February 4, 2010 PAP2 meeting that was held in San Francisco in conjunction with the OpenSG meetings, it was agreed that an evaluation methodology similar to the one presented by NIST and discussed by the group be used to perform Task 6. The group has also decided to issue a call for contribution of modeling tools and resources to assist in conducting the evaluation:

• Indication of interest by February 19, 2010 to assist in conducting the evaluation.

• Contribution of wireless technologies modeling tools by February 19, 2010. The tools contributed must be made available on the NIST twiki and available for use by all parties.

• Contribution of measurement and experimental data for validating the performance evaluation results.

April 2010


Slide 42

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

NIST Modeling Presentation

• Detailed description of the modeling approach can be found at:

• http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/PAP2modeling.ppt

April 2010


Slide 43

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

OpenSG InformationInput from Open SG SG-NET received on February 22, 2010: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Releas

e_2/

The reference architecture models locations are: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium

_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e-with-Xflows.pdf• http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium

_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e.pdf

The SG-Network functional requirements spreadsheet location is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium

_Release_2/SG-Net_TF_%20funct-volumteric-reqs_v2.xls

The SG-Network system requirements specification locations is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium

_Release_2/SG%20Network%20System%20Requirements%20Specification%20v2.doc

April 2010


Slide 44

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

NIST mailing list

• General access portal http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans

• PAP Email Lists • Email lists have been establish for each PAP.

These lists support self registration using the links below. They will replace the current set. Where possible, the SGIP Administrator will autoregister those presently on the list. If you have any question, please self register and this will ensure that you are on the desired list.

April 2010


Slide 45

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

NIST Modeling

• Tools provided by NIST and used in presentation PAP2modeling.ppt

• nist_80211_mac.m: Matlab code for 80211_MAC_Model • nist_80211_MAC_readme.pdf: Readme file for using the

802.11 model Matlab code • SNRcdf.m: Matlab code for computing SNR probability

at wireless receiver • SNRcdfCell.m: Matlab code for coverage analysis • nist_phy_model_readme.pdf: Readme file for using

Matlab code for SNRcdf and SNRcdfCell • nist_channel_propagation_models.pdf: Channel

propagation models

April 2010


Slide 46

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission 46

Meter Reporting Application: Mean Delay versus Offered Load

April 2010


Slide 47

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Discussion Topics during March Plenary 2010

April 2010


Slide 48

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Tough Questions

• What are the consequences of not responding to the request?

• How much effort, from whom, how quickly needs to be contributed to meet the request?

• Could the June deadline for task completion be extended?

• How will the data provided to NIST be used by other entities in influencing deployment decisions?

• “Entities” range from FERC to consumer appliances

• Can simulation models be useful enough without selecting and constructing channel models?

April 2010


Slide 49

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Working Assumptions• The ongoing interchange of information between power

engineering and communications industry is essential.

• Computer modeling communications against PE supplied uses cases is far more useful than hand waving.

• Although not fully understood or quantified, there will be business incentives to being recognized as a qualified Smart Grid technology.

• Although not fully understood, industry would prefer to be “actively influencing” the technology selection process rather than have it dictated to them.

April 2010


Slide 50

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Status Checklist

1. Is there a public simulator available to run?• 802.16 –Yes, NS2

• 802.11 – Yes, NIST Matlab

2. Has the simulator been recently executed to demonstrate it can produce useful results?– Yes, NIST Matlab for 802.11. 3 attendees.

3. Have any of the OpenSG uses cases been modeled?– No

4. Has anyone volunteered to run the model and report results?

5. In time for the March 31 status meeting?

April 2010


Slide 51

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Status Checklist4. Has anyone volunteered to run the model on the use cases

and report results?4. In time for the March 31 NIST status meeting?5. In time for May 802 Interim meeting?6. In time for June NIST deadline?

5. Has any 802 participant validated the model results against other simulators or lab test?– No

6. Are there any known corrections or extensions to the models needed to model uses cases?– 802.11 model is missing mesh– 802.11 model has been run using only 1 Mbps, BPSK in 2.4 GHz– Automatic rate scaling

April 2010


Slide 52

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Status Checklist7. Is there a better way to promote uptake of model

execution?– through advertising/cooperation with universities?

– through outreach/cooperation with support organizations such as Zigbee, Wi-Fi, WiMAX

– Develop one page description/advertising of PAP#2 modeling task

– Dorothy & Mark will help Bruce do this

8. Are there any known clarifications to the uses cases required to provide useful results?

April 2010


Slide 53

doc.: IEEE 802.11-10/0455r2

Submission

Future Smart Grid ad hoc calls• Schedule plan so far has been Wednesdays at 2pm EST

• Future call plans will be to continue this pattern – 1 per week – to July

• Next call March 24

• Call topic suggestions

• Review of one page task promotion

• Detailed walk thru of first three use cases to determine if we need further clarification from Open SG (on March 31)

• Reports on model results (from anyone)

• Or note any additional commitments to run models