Sensing Performance of the IEEE 802.11bf Protocol and Its Impact on Data Communication

TL;DR

The paper addresses the lack of quantitative analysis on the sensing overhead and data‑plane impact of IEEE 802.11bf in the sub‑7 GHz band. It implements the latest 802.11bf sensing features in a simulator, focusing on TB SME flows (NDPA sounding and CSI reporting) and compares EDCA versus PIFS access to measure overhead via new metrics (PSO, PSM, PAWD) and throughput. Key findings show that EDCA often causes missed sensing, especially under higher loads, while PIFS with a long SAW (e.g., 127) minimizes overhead and preserves data throughput close to the no‑sensing case, albeit with RU‑size‑driven discontinuities. The results provide practical guidelines for configuring 802.11bf networks, highlighting that sensing performance can be optimized by choosing PIFS access and a large SAW, thereby enabling efficient coexistence of sensing and data communication in real deployments in the sub‑7 GHz band.

Abstract

Wi-Fi sensing has been used to detect and track movements in an environment, resulting in the emergence of several innovative applications. Wi-Fi sensing can detect movement and locate objects by analyzing variations in the Wi-Fi signal due to its interaction with moving objects. Until recently, Wi-Fi sensing has been primarily available through proprietary solutions, which has limited its adoption. However, the recent initiative by the IEEE to develop the IEEE 802.11bf standard promises to make the adoption of Wi-Fi sensing widespread. Although Wi-Fi sensing procedures in communication standards can be overhead, there is currently a lack of literature exploring the sensing performance of Wi-Fi sensing procedures specified in the IEEE 802.11bf standard and its impact on data communication. Therefore, this paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the sensing performance of the IEEE 802.11bf protocol and its impact on data communication in different configurations. Our findings expose the limitations of specific configurations and pave the way to provide guidance on efficient operating configurations of an IEEE 802.11bf network.

Figures (9)

• Figure 1: Different phases in a TB Sensing Measurement Exchange
• Figure 2: Illustration of SAW, TxOP and SMEs
• Figure 3: Sensing Overhead vs number of STAs (Configuration 1)
• Figure 4: Missed Sensing vs. number of STAs (Configuration 1)
• Figure 5: Throughput vs. number of STAs (Configuration 1)