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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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.

Alex


Le 25/05/2020 à 16:43, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Grant <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>     [phone] and [phone]
>     http://www.ninetiles.com
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     5gangip mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>