Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 20/05/2020 à 18:18, John Grant a écrit :
> 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.

In France in the city of Nantes there is active NGO and political 
activity about banning 5G in the city until further evidence of no risk 
to health is produced.  (not necessarily a covid aspect).

Generally speaking, I do think that an Ethics, a Health and other 
responsibility considerations towards the public at large sections might 
be necessary in all Internet Drafts.

Some times we do not realize enough how pervasive and important the 
technologies are.

Alex

>
> [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.
>
>
>> 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.
>