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

Hi David,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:44 PM David Lake <d.lake@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:

> I made this comment at the start of the 5G work at IETF (DMM, netslices,
> 5gangip, et al).
>
>
>
We missed it last time, let's not do that this time.

> What we are talking about is VERY relevant to “beyond 5G” but IETF
> typically takes a more short-term view of the world.
>
>
>

True but in this group we do have time :)

> Shouldn’t “6G” therefore be an IRTF group?
>
>
>

That would enable the scope to be both broader and less-well-defined.

Maybe.

>
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* 5gangip <5gangip-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Behcet Sarikaya
> *Sent:* 25 May 2020 15:44
> *To:* John Grant <j@ninetiles.com>
> *Cc:* 5GANGIP <5gangip@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk -- Issue 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Grant <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
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninetiles.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IDXjKALMcrv2Y9b%2FhGJ1Xj552oMfMD4n13eae3tj%2Bkc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> 5gangip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F5gangip&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IpdHWTI3%2BtBK9X31cJoCFmdivSBykkrNNdfWotPVsVk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>