Coexistence Manager Control Models for Secondary Spectrum
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The existing communication control systems for secondary frequency usage lack efficient models for arranging functional entities, leading to degraded network performance and challenges in coexistence of secondary systems, particularly when the Coexistence Manager (CM) placement affects signaling load and master CM selection.
Innovation Solution
The proposed communication system and method introduce three control models for efficiently managing coexistence: a centralized model with a master CM, a cooperative model distributing CM authority among secondary usage nodes, and a distributed model where each node autonomously decides channels, allowing adaptive selection based on system requirements and load management.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Extent of automation
If CM is arranged on a secondary usage node, then the system can operate autonomously without centralized control, but the signaling load increases and network performance degrades
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the control function by introducing intermediate control entities (access points or base stations) that handle local coexistence management. This segmentation allows secondary usage nodes to operate autonomously within their local networks while offloading signaling management to intermediate entities, thus maintaining autonomy without overwhelming the network with signaling load.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces intermediate control entities (access points or base stations) as mediators between secondary usage nodes and the network. These intermediaries collect coexistence information from multiple nodes, process it locally, and manage signaling efficiently, thereby enabling autonomous operation while preventing network performance degradation from excessive signaling.
2Productivity
If a master CM is selected to centralize control decisions, then signaling load is reduced, but the system becomes less flexible when multiple nodes need equal decision-making authority
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements dynamic control distribution where the master CM role can be selected differently based on system conditions and requirements. The system can adaptively choose between centralized control (when signaling efficiency is priority) and distributed control (when flexibility and equal decision-making authority is needed), making the control structure dynamic rather than fixed.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent allows changing the control parameter from centralized to distributed based on system needs. By selecting different master CMs or changing the control mode dynamically, the system can adjust its degree of centralization, thereby balancing signaling efficiency with control flexibility according to specific operational requirements.
3Adaptability or versatility
If different functional entities are arranged in various apparatuses, then the system can adapt to different deployment scenarios, but the system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent designs functional entities (CM, CE, CDIS) that can be universally deployed in different apparatuses (secondary usage nodes, access points, base stations, network controllers). Each entity type serves multiple functions across different deployment scenarios, allowing the same functional architecture to adapt to various configurations without proportionally increasing system complexity.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
There is provided a communication device including a control unit configured to send, to a communication control apparatus, information about the communication device, the latter being configured to operate a secondary system using a spectrum assigned to a primary system. The control unit is also configured to receive, from the communication control apparatus, a list of channels, and select, for the secondary system, a channel from among the list of channels.