6
802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003

802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

802.20 Traffic Models Discussion

July 24, 2003

Page 2: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

Traffic model philosophy• Minimal approach:

– Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress performance:

– Cannot ignore Web-browsing - (interactive, can be lots of bytes)

– Add some VoIP - (real-time, delay/loss sensitive)

– Throw in some fixed-size file transfers for throughput tests

– Only Web-browsing & VoIP model. Why do more?

• Comprehensive approach:– Determine list of applications that will be used in MBWA system

– Decide on traffic models (if there are contributions)

– Reference models for general use; some of them may not be used for comparisons

Page 3: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

Traffic types• Web browsing

• FTP (File transfer)

• E-mail

• WAP (Wireless Application Protocol)

• Voice / VoIP

• Video telephony / videoconference

• Audio streaming

• Video streaming

• Gaming

• File-sharing (peer-to-peer)

• PDA remote synchronization

• Instant Messaging

• Multimedia messaging

• 3G type - broadcast/multicast/presence (see May mtg doc)

Page 4: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

User Scenarios

• Traffic & application details depend on user & device scenario. Some examples:

• Laptop user: – Large display, high power, large storage, portable

• PDA: – Medium display, medium power, medium storage, mobile

• SmartPhone: – Small display, low power, low storage, very mobile

• Telematics, remote cameras

Page 5: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

Traffic modeling scope/approach• Only model active user, not subscriber

• Only model application traffic, not traffic mix

• Modeling of adaptive applications– only if there is strong need/demand

Page 6: 802.20 Traffic Models Discussion July 24, 2003. Traffic model philosophy Minimal approach: –Eval group needs to model some application examples to demonstrate/compare/stress

Traffic Models Prioritized Agenda• Freeze scope of traffic models group, list of traffic types,

list of usage scenarios– Proposed list on email, 2 weeks comment period, ~Aug 8

• General approach– uplink, downlink, background loading

– At least initial comments by ~ Aug 8, no major surprises later

• Consensus on one type after other– Web-browsing, VoIP, FTP ..

Conference calls (email is main medium)Aug 7 Thu, 12 noon-1:30noon EDT (3pm-4:30pm GMT)

Aug 27 Wed, 12 noon-1:30noon EDT (3pm-4:30pm GMT)

(can move second call to share pain if needed)