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

I made this comment at the start of the 5G work at IETF (DMM, netslices, 5gangip, et al).

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

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

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

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<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<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<mailto: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>