Coexistence of 5G NR and Wi-Fi 6E/7 at 6 GHz: Experimental Interference Measurements Rafik Zitouni⋆ , Demos Serghiou⋆ , Ali Dagdeviren⋄ , Tajinder Randhawa⋄ , Edwards Udean⋆ , Hanli Dong⋆ , Riccardo Pozza⋆ , Rahim Tafazolli⋆ , ⋆
arXiv:2607.28213v1 [cs.NI] 30 Jul 2026
6GIC, Institute for Communication Systems (ICS), University of Surrey, Guildford, U.K. ⋄ ArteLabs, Morden, London, U.K. ⋆ Email: {r.zitouni, demos.serghiou}@surrey.ac.uk, ⋄ {ali.dagdeviren, trandhawa}@artelabs.co.uk
Abstract—This paper presents the first conductedinterference measurements of a commercial Very Low Power (VLP) Wi-Fi 6E/7 device into both the gNB uplink and UE downlink receiver chains of a live 5G New Radio (NR) system, using a complete O-RAN/SDR stack with 5G core in band n102 (6 GHz). We use a Software-Defined Radio (SDR) testbed built on OpenAirInterface with band n102 support (40 MHz, 30 kHz Subcarrier Spacing). We sweep the injected Wi-Fi power and record throughput, block error rate, and signal-to-noise ratio on both the gNB uplink and UE downlink paths. Neither receiver shows measurable degradation below −75 dBm. Above this threshold, performance degrades progressively. The UE is more resilient at lower data rates and unaffected by beacon-only transmissions. A complementary link-budget analysis maps these measured thresholds to equivalent VLP-to-victim distances. These distances fall well inside the 545–685 m Listen Before Talk (LBT) exclusion zone, confirming that a compliant VLP device would vacate the channel before its emissions could harm either receiver. Index Terms—O-RAN, 5G NR, SDR, MFCN, Wi-Fi 6E, WiFi 7, OpenAirInterface, LBT, IEEE 802.11ax, IEEE 802.11be, VLP
I. I NTRODUCTION The opening of the 6 GHz band for unlicensed access is one of the most significant spectrum-policy developments of the past decade. The FCC allocated 1.2 GHz of new spectrum [1], while European regulators opened the lower 500 MHz [2]. Two radio access technologies (RATs) are expected to share these bands: Wi-Fi 6E/7 (IEEE 802.11ax/be) [3], operating as Very Low Power (VLP) devices, and 5G New Radio Unlicensed (NR-U) [4] as part of Mobile/Fixed Communications Networks (MFCN). The terms “VLP” and “Wi-Fi” are used interchangeably throughout this paper. Unlike the 5 GHz bands, the 6 GHz range has no pre-existing unlicensed deployments. Coexistence mechanisms can therefore be designed from scratch. Both RATs employ Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) protocols derived from Carrier-Sense Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA), yet differ in scheduling architecture, transmission-opportunity duration, and uplink access mechanisms. Rigorous experimental characterisation of their interaction is therefore essential.
The paper is organised as follows. Section II surveys related work and states our contributions. Section III develops the analytical coexistence model. Sections IV and V detail the experimental setup and measurement results. Section VI discusses the implications, and Section VII concludes the paper. II. R ELATED WORK AND PAPER CONTRIBUTIONS Naik et al. [5] used stochastic geometry to derive closedform transmission success probabilities for Wi-Fi 6E and NR-U sharing the 6 GHz band. The same authors identified the inter-RAT Energy-Detection (ED) threshold as the most consequential unresolved parameter, noting that no consensus exists on whether energy detection, preamble detection, or a hybrid scheme best enables fair coexistence [6]. Keshtiarast and Petrova [10] extended this with an ns-3 simulation of Wi-Fi 6E access points and 5G NRU gNBs in dense residential deployments, finding that EDthreshold selection matters more for fairness than Maximum Channel Occupancy Time (MCOT) alone. However, both studies remain simulation-based and downlink-oriented. Neither characterises real Wi-Fi 6E/7 devices or gNB UL receiver chains under controlled interference. Adjacent-channel and legacy-service protection scenarios have also been studied. Pastukh et al. [7] used Monte Carlo simulation to quantify Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) degradation in 5G NR DL throughput from indoor Wi-Fi in the neighbouring 5925–6425 MHz band, reporting losses of up to 22.5% under line-of-sight conditions. YozaMitsuishi et al. [8] analysed aggregate interference from WiFi and 5G NR-U devices into fixed-satellite service uplinks across the United States. The authors in [11] conducted an extensive measurement campaign on a dense indoor WiFi 6E network; their focus, however, is leakage from indoor Wi-Fi 6E into incumbent fixed links rather than co-channel interference into a gNB UL receiver. Collectively, these works [5], [6], [7], [8], [10], [11] provide analytical, simulation, and measurement foundations for 6 GHz coexistence, yet a common gap remains: no study offers hardware-in-the-loop validation of Wi-Fi 6E/7 interference into both gNB UL and UE DL receiver chains.
The behaviour of real LBT MAC implementations under controlled co-channel interference is uncharacterised, and no end-to-end 5G NR setup with a full core network has been tested against a live VLP device. The contributions of this paper are: First conducted-interference measurements of a commercial VLP Wi-Fi 6E/7 device into a 5G NR system (band n102) using a complete O-RAN/SDR stack with 5G core, covering both the gNB UL and UE DL receiver chains. • Per-dB characterisation of the degradation starting point at each receiver via SNR, BLER, and throughput sweeps. • A link-budget model that derives two distances: the harm radius (how far the VLP signal can travel before causing degradation) and the LBT exclusion zone (how far the gNB signal forces the VLP to defer). The exclusion zone is several times larger than the harm radius, so the VLP vacates the channel before it can degrade either receiver.
•
III. A NALYTICAL C OEXISTENCE M ODEL This section derives the spatial relationship between two quantities: (i) the LBT exclusion radius dLBT , within which a VLP device senses gNB broadcast power above its Energy Detection (ED) threshold and defers, and (ii) the harm radius dharm , the maximum distance at which VLP emissions reach the −75 dBm degradation threshold measured in Section V. Coexistence holds when dharm ≪ dLBT . The dominant interference path runs from a Wi-Fi 6E/7 VLP access point toward the 5G NR gNB uplink and UE downlink receivers. ECC Report 366 [9] studies shared use of the 5925–7125 MHz band under this geometry. The relevant 3GPP bands (TS 38.104 [13]) are n102 (5925–6425 MHz) and n104 (6425–7125 MHz); we target n102, though the analysis extends to n104 with ≈ 1 dB additional propagation loss at 6775 MHz. We model received power with a log-distance path-loss model consistent with [5], [6], [7], [8], [10], augmented by an explicit excess-loss term LEX that captures non-free-space propagation: d RX TX − LEX , (1) P (d) = P − L0 − 10γ log10 d0 where P TX is the transmit Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP), L0 = 20 log10 (4πf /c) = 47.98 dB is the free-space path loss (FSPL) at d0 = 1 m for f = 5995 MHz and c = 3 × 108 m/s, and γ = 2 is the free-space reference exponent. The urban propagation environment between the elevated macro gNB and street-level VLP is captured through LEX rather than an inflated exponent, following the agreed methodology of ECC Report 366 [9], which specifies Recommendation ITU-R P.1411-12 [14] for
TABLE I W I -F I 6E/7 (VLP) AND 5G NR COEXISTENCE PARAMETERS Parameter Operating band Centre frequency Channel bandwidth Max transmit power CCA / ED threshold Propagation Reference clock Duty cycle
Wi-Fi 6E/7 5G gNB (VLP) 6 GHz VLP n102 5995 MHz 5995.2 MHz
5G UE
80 / 160 MHz
40 MHz (106 RBs) 20 dBm (pMax) N/A
n102 5995.2 MHz
40 MHz (106 RBs) 14 dBm EIRP 73 dBm/100 MHz (66 dBm/20 MHz) −62 dBm / N/A 20 MHz P.1411-12 urban NLoS (VLP↔gNB) Internal 10 MHz (White Rabbit) 3–5% DL-heavy (104:38 sym)
FSPL 10 MHz (WR) Same as gNB
the WAS/RLAN↔MFCN path and Recommendation ITUR P.2109-2 [15] for outdoor-to-indoor coupling of indoor VLP devices. Deployment power. A VLP device triggers its LBT on the always-on broadcast/SSB signalling, which is radiated across the sector rather than beamformed to a served UE; the governing quantity is therefore the sector broadcast EIRP, not a location-specific beamformed value. Per ECC Report 366 [9] (§2.1.3.1), the representative macro-cell EIRP is 78–82 dBm/100 MHz; we adopt the sharing-study baseline of 73 dBm/100 MHz (Study C10 of [9] uses 70 dBm/100 MHz; up to 83 dBm/100 MHz is used there for SSB-detection assessments). Scaled to the VLP’s 20 MHz sensing bandwidth, this is 73 − 10 log10 (100/20) = 66 dBm/20 MHz. Propagation. For the VLP↔gNB detection path over the 0.5–0.7 km exclusion range at 6 GHz, the ITU-R P.1411-12 urban-NLoS model [14] contributes a median excess loss of LEX ≈ 23 dB above free space. For the short-range harm path (VLP↔victim) we set LEX = 0, retaining freespace propagation as a conservative upper bound on the harm distance—permitted for the co-located link by ECC Report 366, Note 2, and understating neither the harm reach nor overstating the exclusion zone. Both choices bias the analysis toward the smallest spatial margin. Table I lists the system parameters. A. LBT Exclusion Zone The LBT exclusion zone is the region around the gNB within which a VLP device senses NR broadcast power above its −62 dBm ED threshold and defers. Setting P rx (d) = θED and inverting Equation (1): dLBT = d0 · 10
P TX −L0 −LEX −θED 10γ
.
(2)
Fully loaded (P TX = 66 dBm/20 MHz, all RBs occupied; LEX = 23.3 dB): dLBT = 10
66−47.98−23.3−(−62) 20
= 102.836 ≈ 685 m.
(3)
SSB + reference signals (33 active RBs in 20 MHz; effective P TX = 66 − 10 log10 (53/33) = 63.9 dBm; LEX = 23.2 dB): dLBT,SSB = 10
63.9−47.98−23.2−(−62) 20
PTP Switch
ICS-OAI O-RAN
= 102.736 ≈ 545 m. (4) 5G Core
10 MHz
B. VLP Harm Radius
Ref
Rear USRP X310
The harm radius is the maximum distance at which a VLP at 14 dBm EIRP produces the measured −75 dBm degradation onset at the victim, under conservative freespace propagation (LEX = 0): dharm = 10(14−47.98+75)/20 = 102.051 ≈ 112 m.
ICS-OAI O-RAN
OBX-160
TX0
Fig. 1 shows the testbed. Three bare-metal servers host the 5G core, the ICS/OAI gNB, and the ICS/OAI UE. Each SDR node uses a USRP X310 connected via fibre cables to an OBX-160 RF front-end, synchronised via a White Rabbit PTP switch distributing a common 10 MHz reference. Transmit and receive ports pass through programmable RF attenuators into a ZN4PD1-842-S+ passive combiner that aggregates the 5G NR DL/UL paths with the Wi-Fi 6E/7 access point (TP-Link AXE5400). A spectrum analyser at the combiner output verifies power levels. The fully cabled architecture gives repeatable control of power and timing without an over-the-air licence. B. 5G NR Configuration Tables I and II list the system and gNB-specific parameters. The carrier sits at 5995.2 MHz in band n102: 30 kHz SCS, 106 RBs (40 MHz), Time Division Duplexing (TDD) pattern of 5 ms (7 DL slots + 6 DL symbols, 2 UL slots + 4 UL symbols). The ICS/OAI UE shares the same configuration and transmits at up to 20 dBm.
TX0
RX1 A enuator
Spectrum Analyser
Fig. 1. 5G NR and Wi-Fi 6E/7 Coexistence Testbed TABLE II ICS/OAI G NB AND ICS/OAI UE CONFIGURATIONS ( BAND N 102) Category
Carrier
A. Testbed Overview
RX1 A enuator
WiFi 6E/7
IV. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP AND T EST A PPROACH The gNB and UE run on the OpenAirInterface5G (OAI) platform [12], extended at ICS, University of Surrey. The following subsections detail the testbed hardware, radio configurations, and measurement procedure.
OBX-160
RF Cables Spli er/Combiner
(5)
The ratio dLBT /dharm = 685/112 ≈ 6.1× confirms that the VLP device defers well beyond its maximum harm range; under SSB-only loading the margin is still 545/112 ≈ 4.9×. This holds under the most conservative model pairing— realistic urban NLoS for detection and optimistic free space for harm; a consistent NLoS treatment of the harm path would shorten dharm further and widen the margin. LBT alone therefore guarantees spatial protection of both 5G NR receivers. This margin is referenced to the measured −75 dBm degradation onset; under the more stringent ITU-R/ECC 366 protection criterion of I/N = −6 dB (Table 8 of [9]) the corresponding harm distance is larger.
UE
gNB
Front USRP X310
Waveform Bandwidth
UL TX
Parameter DL centre frequency UL centre frequency NR band ARFCN (SSB) Point A (ARFCN) Subcarrier spacing Carrier bandwidth BWP / bandwidth location pMax (UE) PRB blacklist
TDD
Pattern
Value / Description 5995.2 MHz 5995.2 MHz (TDD: same as DL) n102 (6 GHz shared band) 799680 798408 (5976.12 MHz) 30 kHz (µ = 1) 106 RBs (≈40 MHz) 28875 (RBstart=0, L=106) 20 dBm (max UE TX power) 51, 52, 53, 54 (excluded RBs) 5 ms period: 7 DL slots + 6 DL sym, 2 UL slots + 4 UL sym
C. Wi-Fi 6E Configuration The Wi-Fi 6E access point (TP-Link AXE5400) operates in VLP mode on Channel 9 with an 80 MHz bandwidth centred at 5985 MHz. The primary channel frequency is 5995 MHz, overlapping directly with the 5G NR carrier. One 6 GHz U.FL antenna connector is cabled to the coupling port of a directional coupler for conducted injection into the testbed. During each interference measurement, heavy bidirectional traffic is generated between the AP and an Intel AX210 client adapter by streaming three 8K video sessions and downloading six 10 Gbit files simultaneously.
TABLE III M EASUREMENT SCENARIOS ID B0
Interference Off
Victim N/A
C1.1a Wi-Fi 6E (80 MHz, UE traffic) (85 Mbit/s) C1.1b Wi-Fi 6E (80 MHz, UE traffic) (60 Mbit/s) C1.1c Wi-Fi 6E (beacons UE only) (85 Mbit/s) C2.1 Wi-Fi 6E (80 MHz, gNB traffic) (85 Mbit/s)
Atten. Metrics – RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, TP DL 5 dB TP, BLER DL 5 dB TP, BLER DL 5 dB BLER UL 5 dB TP, BLER, SNR Fig. 2. Wi-Fi 6E channel 9 (80 MHz) overlapping NR-ARFCN 799680.
This load produces sustained channel occupancy throughout the measurement interval.
V. M EASUREMENT RESULTS This section presents the conducted interference measurements for both victim paths defined in Section IV-D. Fig. 2 confirms that the Wi-Fi 6E channel overlaps the 5G NR carrier completely. Tests C1.1a and C1.1b evaluate two DL operating points. The 85 Mbit/s rate represents a high-load condition near peak MCS. The 60 Mbit/s rate represents a medium-load condition with a lower MCS and greater coding margin. Together they cover the range of interference resilience expected in practice.
Data Throughput (Mbits/s)
The Wi-Fi signal is injected into two victim paths: • C1 (VLP → UE DL): interference enters the ICS/OAI UE downlink receiver. • C2 (VLP → gNB UL): interference enters the ICS/OAI gNB uplink receiver. Each path follows a three-step protocol. First, a baseline measurement (B0) records Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ), Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Block Error Rate (BLER), and DL/UL throughput with no interference present. Second, the programmable attenuator is swept in 5 dB steps to increase the injected Wi-Fi power progressively; finer 1–2 dB steps are applied near observed thresholds. Third, the same metrics are recorded at each power level. Table III summarises the test scenarios. TCP DL traffic is generated using iperf3 for each test case from the User Plane Function module of the 5G Core towards the UE. Three data sources are captured at every power level: • ICS/OAI gNB logs: timestamped RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, and BLER. • ICS/OAI UE logs: iperf3 client/server output reporting TCP throughput. • Spectrum analyser: power spectral density captures over the shared 6 GHz band.
80
(a)
60 40 20 0 −120 80
Baseline (no interference) 5G NR Data Throughput
−100
−80 −60 −40 Injected WiFi AP Power (dBm)
−20
0
−20
0
(b)
60 BLER (%)
D. Test Procedure
Baseline (no interference) 5G NR BLER
40 20 0 −120
−100
−80 −60 −40 Injected WiFi AP Power (dBm)
Fig. 3. ICS/OAI UE performance versus injected Wi-Fi power (85 Mbit/s): (a) DL throughput, (b) BLER.
A. C1.1a: VLP interference to ICS/OAI UE at 85 Mbit/s The ICS/OAI UE DL traffic was set to 85 Mbit/s. With no interference, the measured throughput at the UE matched the configured rate. Fig. 3(a) shows the DL throughput versus injected WiFi power. Throughput was unaffected below −75 dBm. It dropped by ∼10% at −70 dBm, ∼25% at −65 dBm, and ∼50% at −60 dBm. Radio-link failures were observed at −60 dBm. The link became unusable by −40 dBm. The corresponding BLER is plotted in Fig. 3(b). BLER remained below 1% for interferer levels under −75 dBm. It increased to 3.79% at −70 dBm and reached ∼10% at −60 dBm.
(a)
TABLE IV ICS/OAI UE BLER VERSUS INJECTED W I -F I POWER (60 M BIT / S ) Average BLER (%) 0.29 0.06 5.39 9.69
22.5
SNR (dB)
Wi-Fi Power (dBm) −105 −80 −70 −60
25.0 20.0 17.5 15.0 Baseline (no interference) 5G NR BLER
12.5 10.0
−85
TABLE V AVERAGE BLER UNDER BEACON - ONLY W I -F I INTERFERENCE ( NO TRAFFIC ) Average BLER (%) 0.00 0.02 0.05
10
C. C1.1c: VLP beacon-only interference to ICS/OAI UE at 85 Mbit/s The ICS/OAI UE DL traffic was set to 85 Mbit/s. The Wi-Fi AP transmitted beacons only, with no data traffic. The ICS/OAI UE was substantially more resilient under beacon-only interference. The average BLER increase was marginal, rising from 0% to ∼0.05% across a 30 dB increase in interference power (see Table V). No significant impact was observed up to −55 dBm. D. C2.1: VLP interference to ICS/OAI gNB UL receiver Wi-Fi interference was injected into the ICS/OAI gNB UL receiver at progressively increasing power levels. Fig. 4(a) shows the mean SNR versus injected Wi-Fi power. A 1 dB SNR drop occurred between −80 and −75 dBm. A further 1 dB drop was measured at −74 dBm, and an additional 6 dB degradation at −64 dBm. As shown in Fig. 4(b), BLER remained below 1% for interferer levels under −75 dBm. It increased to 10% at −64 dBm. Fig. 4(c) shows the UL throughput. No measurable impact was observed below −75 dBm. A 50% throughput drop occurred at −64 dBm. VI. D ISCUSSION AND DESIGN IMPLICATIONS This section maps the measured degradation thresholds to a real deployment where the VLP device interferes with the 5G NR gNB and UE receivers. In our conducted tests we bypassed the VLP’s LBT and injected Wi-Fi power directly into the victim receiver chain at controlled levels.
−70
−65
−60
−70
−65
−60
−70
−65
−60
WiFi AP Power (dBm)
(b) Baseline (no interference) 5G NR BLER
8 6 4 2 0
B. C1.1b: VLP interference to ICS/OAI UE at 60 Mbit/s
−85
−80
−75
Injected
Data Throughput (Mbit/s)
The ICS/OAI UE DL traffic was set to 60 Mbit/s. Wi-Fi traffic was unchanged from test C1.1a. The ICS/OAI UE was more resilient at the lower data rate. Throughput remained unchanged for interferer levels below −70 dBm and dropped by only 8.58% at −60 dBm. BLER, shown in Table IV, remained below 1% for interferer levels up to −80 dBm. It rose to 5.39% at −70 dBm and reached 9.69% at −60 dBm.
−75
Injected
BLER (%)
Wi-Fi Interferer Power (dBm) −85 −65 −55
−80
18
WiFi AP Power (dBm)
(c)
16 14 12 10 8
−85
Baseline (no interference) 5G NR BLER −80
−75
Injected
WiFi AP Power (dBm)
Fig. 4. ICS/OAI gNB performance versus injected Wi-Fi power: (a) mean SNR, (b) BLER, (c) UL throughput. TABLE VI S UMMARY OF VLP W I -F I 6E/7 INTERFERENCE IMPACT ON 5G NR RECEIVERS
Victim < −75 dBm −75 to −65 dBm > −60 dBm UE (85 Mbit/s) No impact 10–25% TP loss 50%+ TP loss, RLF UE (60 Mbit/s) No impact 5.4% BLER 8.6% TP loss, 9.7% BLER gNB UL No impact 1–2 dB SNR drop 6 dB SNR drop, 50% TP Beacon-only interference (no Wi-Fi traffic): UE (85 Mbit/s) No impact up to −55 dBm (BLER < 0.05%) TP = Throughput; RLF = Radio Link Failure.
Table VI summarises the observed impact across all test configurations. The 5G NR gNB and UE signals exceed the −62 dBm ED threshold across a radius of 545–685 m (Section III-A), so the VLP’s own LBT prevents it from transmitting at any distance where its emissions could reach the degradation levels observed in our measurements. A. VLP interference into the gNB UL receiver Applying the path-loss model of Equation (1) to the −75 dBm gNB UL degradation onset measured in Section VD, a VLP device at 14 dBm EIRP would need to be within
112 m of the receiver to reach that threshold at its input. At that distance, LBT has already been triggered by the gNB’s own transmissions (exclusion zone ≥ 545 m). Under normal network operation, the VLP would therefore vacate the channel before its emissions could reach the measured degradation threshold. B. VLP interference into the UE DL receiver Two DL configurations were tested: 85 Mbit/s (near peak MCS) and 60 Mbit/s (lower MCS with greater coding margin). The 60 Mbit/s link was consistently more resilient, and the difference is explained by the lower MCS: more coding redundancy absorbs interference that would push the higher MCS past its BLER target. Under beacon-only interference (test C1.1c), the ICS/OAI UE showed no measurable degradation up to −55 dBm, since the low duty cycle of beacon frames poses negligible risk to the 5G NR DL. C. Spatial protection through LBT The link-budget model of Section III maps the measured −75 dBm threshold to a VLP harm radius of 112 m (Equation (5))—6.1× shorter than the 685 m LBT exclusion zone (Equation (3)). The gNB’s LBT contour exceeds the intersite distance, so both UL and DL symbols remain above the −62 dBm ED threshold throughout the cell. A compliant VLP device cannot transmit on band n102 anywhere within the network’s operational footprint. Study C10 of ECC Report 366 [9] reaches the same conclusion through simulation: a single VLP at 14 dBm does not harm MFCN DL or UL receivers. Our measured onset threshold and 112 m harm radius provide the first hardware-based confirmation of that finding. The −62 dBm ED threshold is sufficient for band n102 deployments. Even at minimum loading (SSB only), the exclusion zone exceeds the harm radius by 4.9×. Near an active terminal, a UE transmitting at 23 dBm EIRP (reduced by 4 dB body loss [9]) triggers the VLP’s LBT at approximately 43 m, providing a secondary protection mechanism. No additional mitigation is needed for a single VLP device. This margin holds as long as the gNB antenna maintains line-of-sight to street level. D. Limitations Bypassing the VLP’s LBT and injecting interference continuously represents a worst case that a compliant device would never produce. The testbed uses a single VLP source on a static line-of-sight path; multipath, fading, aggregate interference from co-located devices, adjacent-channel leakage, and mobility are all absent. Real-world interference would therefore be lower, since LBT silencing, fading, and the VLP’s 3–5% duty cycle further reduce exposure. VII. C ONCLUSION This work experimentally characterised co-channel VLP Wi-Fi 6E/7 interference into a 5G NR system in band n102 using conducted power-injection measurements. Neither the
UE DL receiver nor the gNB UL receiver degraded below −75 dBm, and beacon-only interference caused no impact up to −55 dBm. Mapping these thresholds through the proposed link-budget model, a compliant VLP device vacates the channel before its emissions can degrade either receiver. Future work will extend these results to adjacent-channel interference, aggregate multi-device scenarios, and band n104. We also plan to propose mitigation techniques that reduce the impact at the identified degradation threshold. R EFERENCES [1] FCC, "Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; In the Matter of Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band," ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, Apr. 2020. [2] CEPT, "CEPT Report 73: Report from CEPT to the European Commission in Response to the Mandate to Study Feasibility and Identify Harmonised Technical Conditions for Wireless Access Systems Including Radio Local Area Networks in the 5925–6425 MHz Band," Mar. 2020. [3] IEEE, "IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021: IEEE Standard for Information Technology — Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Amendment 1: Enhancements for High-Efficiency WLAN," Feb. 2021. [4] 3GPP, "TS 37.213: Physical Layer Procedures for Shared Spectrum Channel Access (Release 16)," Jul. 2020. [5] G. Naik and J.-M. Park, "Coexistence of Wi-Fi 6E and 5G NR-U: Can we do better in the 6 GHz bands?" in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2021, pp. 1–10. [6] G. Naik, J.-M. Park, J. Ashdown, and W. Lehr, "Next generation WiFi and 5G NR-U in the 6 GHz bands: Opportunities and challenges," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 153027–153056, 2020. [7] A. Pastukh, E. Devyatkin, V. Tikhvinskiy, and E. Sinkevich, "Adjacent channel co-existence study between 5G NR and Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band for indoor scenario," in Proc. IEEE EMC Europe, 2023, pp. 1–6. [8] N. Yoza-Mitsuishi, Y. Ma, and J. Coder, "Interference analysis of WLAN and 5G coexisting with fixed satellite services in the 6 GHz band," in Proc. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6. [9] ECC, "ECC Report 366: Feasibility of a potential shared use of the 6425–7125 MHz frequency band between MFCN and WAS/RLAN," Electronic Communications Committee, CEPT, ECC Report 366, Jun. 2025. [10] N. Keshtiarast and M. Petrova, "Coexistence analysis of Wi-Fi 6E and 5G NR-U in the 6 GHz band," in Proc. 2025 International Conference on ns-3 (ICNS3), 2025. [11] S. Dogan-Tusha, M. I. Rochman, A. Tusha, H. Nasiri, J. Helzerman, and M. Ghosh, "Evaluating the interference potential in 6 GHz: An extensive measurement campaign of a dense indoor Wi-Fi 6E network," in Proc. 17th ACM Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation and Characterization (WiNTECH), 2023, pp. 56–63. [12] N. Nikaein, M. K. Marina, S. Manickam, A. Dawson, R. Knopp, and C. Bonnet, "OpenAirInterface: A Flexible Platform for 5G Research,"ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 33–38, Oct. 2014. [13] 3GPP, “TS 38.104: NR; Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception (Release 16),” Jan. 2021. [14] ITU-R, “Recommendation ITU-R P.1411-12: Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of short-range outdoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,” Aug. 2023. [15] ITU-R, “Recommendation ITU-R P.2109-2: Prediction of building entry loss,” Aug. 2023.