Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk -- Issue 1

Hi Alex,

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:56 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> In trying to identify what is 6G, one might think about requirements.
>
> A bandwidth requirement would need to leap to maybe 3 times more than
> the earlier generation.
>
> We would thus talk about 10Gbit/s bandwidth to the end user, over the
> air, for 6G.
>
> The latency exhibited by a ping command - the RTT field - would be
> required to fit in a nano-second range.
>
>
The above are kind of non-IETF issues.

Maybe a requirement on AI (artificial intelligence) maybe more relevant?

Behcet

> Alex
>
>
> Le 25/05/2020 à 16:43, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Grant <j@ninetiles.com
> > <mailto:j@ninetiles.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 20/05/2020 14:55, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> >      > that message was
> >      > saying something like Wuhan got the virus because of the 5G
> >     deployment
> >      > there; I am not sure whether Wuhan 5G is at 3.5GHz, because that
> >     is the
> >      > only differentiating aspect of 5G compared to 4G that might impact
> >      > chemistry/biology
> >     In UK the fear is about 26GHz, and predates covid-19. ITU doesn't
> help
> >     by saying there is an absence of evidence of harm, conspicuously not
> >     saying there is evidence of absence.
> >
> >     [snip]
> >
> >      > In building a hypothetical list of answers to the question of
> what is
> >      > 6G, what are its distinctive characteristics, like huge bandwidth,
> >      > almost-zero latency, quasi-universal coverage,
> >     Those were all supposed to be features of 5G, yet so far only eMBB
> has
> >     been delivered.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we identify this as the Issue 1 as indicated on the subject line?
> > Let's continue to discuss it.
> >
> > Hopefully also over time we identify other issues of interest in the
> future.
> >
> > Let's go!
> >
> > Behcet
> >
> >      > I would definitely add an
> >      > answer telling that 6G uses IPv6 natively
> >     Or maybe it'll use something completely different. Mobile operators
> >     think IPv4 has too much overhead, and IPv6 headers are bigger; they
> >     also
> >     think fixed addresses are a security risk, so changing to IPv6
> doesn't
> >     even eliminate NAT.
> >
> >
> >     [snip]
> >
> >      > PPS: Administratively, one might think to rename this list to
> >     something
> >      > like "6GANGIP" or?  Renaming a list has been traditionally a
> >     difficult
> >      > task at IETF
> >     Well, 3GPP still has 3G in its name, so sticking with 5G should be
> fine.
> >
> >     --
> >     John Grant
> >     Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
> >     +44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
> >     http://www.ninetiles.com
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     5gangip mailing list
> >     5gangip@ietf.org <mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 5gangip mailing list
> > 5gangip@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> 5gangip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>