Design and Evaluation of Licensed Assisted Access LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum

Falconetti, Laetitia; Du, Kai; Karaki, Reem; Obregon, Evanny; Cheng, Jung-Fu; Koorapaty, H.; Mukherjee, Amitav; Falahati, Sorour; Larsson, Daniel

doi:10.1109/mwc.2016.1600049wc

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wi-Fi/LBT-LTE [129], [142]- [144] Wi-Fi: CSMA/CA; LTE: generic LBT -different ED thresholds [142], ideal MAC and different channel selection schemes (random, least interfered) [129], ETSI LBE [143] optimized topologies [144] distributed [129], [142], [143], likely centralized [144] [135], [145]- [147] Wi-Fi: CSMA/CA; LTE: LBT without random backoff - [135] two time granularity levels; [145] ETSI FBE; adaptive transmission duration [146]; dynamic channel switch [146] distributed [135], [145], [147], centralized [146] [124], [126], [132], [136], [147]- [151] Wi-Fi: CSMA/CA; LTE: LBT with random backoff within fixed interval (or fixed CW) -different ED thresholds [132], [136], adaptive ED threshold [150], variable transmission duration [148], different channel selection schemes (random, least power at AP or UE) [136] distributed [123], [133], [151]- [158] Wi-Fi: CSMA/CA; LTE: LBT with binary exponential random backoff -backoff freeze [154], ETSI LBE [151], different ED thresholds [154], different channel selection [133], [155]-…”

Section: B Coexistence Among Broadband Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…duty cycle variants [124], [132], [133], [145], [146], [153], [155]- [157] −vs. other LBT variants [124], [136], [147], [149]- [152], [154], [158]- [162] Impact on LTE −no baseline [148] −vs. plain coexistence [123], [124], [126], [129], [132], [133], [135], [136], [142], [145], [155] −vs.…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…plain coexistence [123], [124], [126], [129], [132], [133], [135], [136], [142], [145], [155] −vs. coexistence with itself [123], [136], [150], [154], [158], [159], [161] −vs. standalone [124], [135], [145], [157] −vs.…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…duty cycle variants [124], [132], [133], [145], [146], [153], [155], [157] −vs. other LBT variants [124], [136], [147], [150]- [152], [154], [158]- [162] Other −fairness (implicitly) for Wi-Fi vs. coexistence with itself [136], [147], [149], [150], [153], [155]- [157], [159] −proportional fair rate allocation for Wi-Fi and LTE [143] −fairness as same Wi-Fi/LTE airtime [152] −proportional fair channel switch [158] −fairness as minimization of collision probability to Wi-Fi [160] −fairness as constant aggregate Wi-Fi throughput [161] −airtime fairness for Wi-Fi based on altruistic gains [162] −maximize aggregate LTE capacity in presence of Wi-Fi [144] −enable different levels of protection for Wi-Fi [148] −maximize total throughput given requirements of each technology [147] −simulations [123], [124], [129], [132], [133], [135], [136], [143]- [146], [148]- ...…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…−successful transmissions [126], [132]; −protection level [148]; −transmission duration [148] −channel access probability [126], [149] −collision probability [149], [160] −SINR [150] −airtime [152], [162] −Jain's fairness [152], [156], [157], [162] −channel occupation [160] −utility [161] −Q-value [161] −entropy [162] −risk-informed interference assessment [156], [157] − 1 LTE link/AP & several Wi-Fi devices [143], [148], [149], [152], [160] − ≤10 APs, or 15 APs/km 2 of each technology [124], [126], [135], [142], [146], [147], [151], [153], [154], [158], [161], [162];…”

Section: -30 Stations Of Each Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Survey of Spectrum Sharing for Inter-Technology Coexistence

Voicu

Simić

Petrova

2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing capacity demands in emerging wireless technologies are expected to be met by network densification and spectrum bands open to multiple technologies. These will, in turn, increase the level of interference and also result in more complex inter-technology interactions, which will need to be managed through spectrum sharing mechanisms. Consequently, novel spectrum sharing mechanisms should be designed to allow spectrum access for multiple technologies, while efficiently utilizing the spectrum resources overall. Importantly, it is not trivial to design such efficient mechanisms, not only due to technical aspects, but also due to regulatory and business model constraints. In this survey we address spectrum sharing mechanisms for wireless inter-technology coexistence by means of a technology circle that incorporates in a unified, system-level view the technical and nontechnical aspects. We thus systematically explore the spectrum sharing design space consisting of parameters at different layers. Using this framework, we present a literature review on intertechnology coexistence with a focus on wireless technologies with equal spectrum access rights, i.e. (i) primary/primary, (ii) secondary/secondary, and (iii) technologies operating in a spectrum commons. Moreover, we reflect on our literature review to identify possible spectrum sharing design solutions and performance evaluation approaches useful for future coexistence cases. Finally, we discuss spectrum sharing design challenges and suggest future research directions.

show abstract