Inter-Technology Coexistence in a Spectrum Commons: A Case Study of Wi-Fi and LTE in the 5 GHz Unlicensed Band
May 20, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Andra M. Voicu, Ljiljana SimiΔ, Marina Petrova
arXiv ID
1605.06442
Category
cs.NI: Networking & Internet
Citations
43
Venue
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
Spectrum sharing mechanisms need to be carefully designed to enable inter-technology coexistence in the unlicensed bands, as these bands are an instance of a spectrum commons where heterogeneous technologies and deployments must coexist. Unlike in licensed bands, where multiple technologies could coexist only in a primary-secondary DSA mode, a spectrum commons offers competition opportunities between multiple dominant technologies, such as Wi-Fi and the recently proposed LTE in the 5 GHz unlicensed band. In this paper we systematically study the performance of different spectrum sharing schemes for inter-technology coexistence in a spectrum commons. Our contributions are threefold. First, we propose a general framework for comparative analysis of spectrum sharing mechanisms in time and frequency, by studying the effect of key constituent parameters. Second, we propose a novel throughput and interference model for inter-technology coexistence, integrating different distributed MAC sharing mechanisms at the same level of abstraction. Finally, we present a case study of IEEE 802.11n Wi-Fi and LTE in the 5 GHz unlicensed band, in order to obtain generalizable insight into coexistence in a spectrum commons. Our extensive simulation results show that LTE/Wi-Fi coexistence in the 5 GHz band can be ensured simply through channel selection schemes, such that time-sharing MAC mechanisms are irrelevant. We also show that, in the general co-channel case, the coexistence performance of MAC sharing mechanisms strongly depends on the interference coupling in the network, as determined by building shielding. We thus identify two regimes: (i) low interference coupling, e.g. residential indoor scenarios, where duty cycle mechanisms outperform sensing-based LBT mechanisms; and (ii) high interference coupling, e.g. open-plan indoor or outdoor hotspot scenarios, where LBT outperforms duty cycle mechanisms.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Networking & Internet
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
π
π
The Cartographer
Federated Learning in Mobile Edge Networks: A Comprehensive Survey
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Indoor Localization Systems and Technologies
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Survey of Important Issues in UAV Communication Networks
π
π
The Cartographer
Network Function Virtualization: State-of-the-art and Research Challenges
π
π
The Cartographer
Applications of Deep Reinforcement Learning in Communications and Networking: A Survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted