May 2000

doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Meeting Notes ad-hoc QoS Simulation

Date:

May 25, 2000

Author:

Evan R. Green,
Intel Architecture Labs - Communications Architecture
+1 (503) 264-8456 FAX +1 (503) 264-3483
e-Mail: Evan.R.Green@Intel.com

Agenda
1) Introductions and what your simulation plans are in general
2) Set a date to get together. Can we meet face to face? Where?
a) Intel is willing to host a meeting in Hillsboro, Oregon or at a geographically central place.
3) Set the agenda for the meeting: (some ideas below)
a) Tools discussion, Opnet etc.
b) Can we share our files such as models and traffic generators?
c) Methods of sharing files
d) Who is doing what and what can we share
4) Other items I may have missed?
5) Summary and recap of next steps

Attending

Evan Green, Intel

Shantanu Kangude, Intel
Duncan Kitchin, Intel
Peter Ecelesine, Cisco
Mike Lewis, Cisco
Dave Halasz, Cisco
Stuart Norman, Cisco
Sunghyun Choi, Philips
Gerard G. Cervello, Philips
Amjad Soomro, Philips
John Kowalski, Sharp
Greg Parks, Sharewave
Raju Gubbi, Sharewave

Introductions and what your plans are for simulation in general:

Evan Green, Intel. Are planning to simulate using Opnet. Interested in NWN proposal. Also would
like to compare to HiperLAN2.
Dave Halasz, Cisco. Has site license for Opnet. Mike Lewis has Opnet for 2 months looking at
higher level management of PCF within AP. Will be simulating, interested in NWN, also interested
in H2 comparison.
John Kowalski, Sharp Labs. Expect to get Opnet soon. Interested in home network applications
with multiple AV streams. Interested in Japan MMAC implications.
Sunghyun Chio, Amjad Soomro, Philips Labs. Using Virginia tech model in Opnet. Have OpnetV7
now with 802.11. Goal to simulate their QoS proposal.

Simulation ad-hoc meeting notes

page 1

Evan R. Green, Intel Architecture Labs

May 2000

doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139

Raju Gubbi, Sharewave, working on joint proposal with Lucent and AT&T. Using Opnet.

Updates from those who could not attend:

Victoria Poncini, Microsoft. Decision made not to do simulation work
Maarten Hoeben, NoWires Needed. Are simulating their proposal now, planning to switch to
Opnet since we all are, do plan to have simulation results to present to TGe
Matt Sherman, AT&T Labs. Been working to add PCF support to Opnet model for several weeks.
Do plan to simulate their proposal in Opnet

Should we meet face to face, when where?

Some companies were willing to travel to have a face to face meeting but due the short timeframe before
the next TGe conference call it was decided to hold weekly conference calls for now.
Willing to travel
Yes

No

Intel
Sharewave
Cisco (several sites)
NoWires Needed
Philips

Simulation discussion
In the wake of the decision not to have a face to face meeting we began discussing some of the proposed
agenda items the first of which was tool selection.
It was widely agreed that using a common model and tool is desirable. The general consensus from the
discussion was to use Opnet since everyone either has it or will soon. Notable, however, are the points
made on the value of the Network Simulator tool from Berkeley having support for the higher layers of
IETF protocols.
After deciding to stick with Opnet the discussion turned to which model should be used. There are two
models available now. The first model is a contributed model from Virginia Tech which Philips has been
working with for some time now. The other model comes from Opnet. Since they have some experience
with both of these models, Philips volunteered to put together a comparison that we will review in our next
meeting.
Both Philips and AT&T confirmed that the 802.11 model from Opnet does not implement the PCF or the
required beacons. An effort will be required to add this component to the model.
Peter asked if there were any companies who could share actual measurements of PCF performance that
could be used to validate these models. NoWires Needed should be consulted since it was mentioned that
they have been using PCF.

Can we share our files?

Philips, Intel, Cisco and Sharewave agreed that sharing of baseline files was desirable. Where baseline was
roughly defined to include components like channel models, MAC protocol with DCF, PCF and Beacon
and application models (including higher layer effects such as IETF: RSVP, SBM, 802.1p, etc.). It was
generally agreed that vendors who do not wish to, would not need to share proprietary components of their
simulations.
An issue was raised about potential copyright violation. Evan agreed to look into this with Opnet.

Simulation ad-hoc meeting notes

page 2

Evan R. Green, Intel Architecture Labs

May 2000

doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139

Summary and recap

Action Items:
AR: Evan, write meeting notes and post to reflector
AR: Evan, check that I can redistribute MMAC presentation with listen before send requirement
AR: Sunghyun, prepare comparison table of Opnet 802.11 models
AR: Evan, check with Opnet about copyright problems with sharing models in public
AR: Evan, fix email address and send out Sungyuns Markov error model
Tenative agenda for next meeting:
Date and time are TBD
1) Review notes and consensus from previous meeting
2) Review Opnet model comparison
3) Channel error model discussion
a) Sunghyuns proposed Markov model

Simulation ad-hoc meeting notes

page 3

Evan R. Green, Intel Architecture Labs