Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G

Frank Fitzek <frank.fitzek@tu-dresden.de> Thu, 07 January 2021 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.fitzek@tu-dresden.de>
X-Original-To: 6gip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6gip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0233A0AA7 for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:05:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HjlNADL19HeM for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout5.zih.tu-dresden.de (mailout5.zih.tu-dresden.de [141.30.67.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF3613A0AB4 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.26.34.108] (helo=msx.tu-dresden.de) by mailout5.zih.tu-dresden.de with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <frank.fitzek@tu-dresden.de>) id 1kxabU-0005YS-4t for 6gip@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:05:48 +0100
Received: from [192.168.2.108] (87.142.67.149) by msx-l108.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.34.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:05:44 +0100
To: <6gip@ietf.org>
References: <CAC8QAcehdY7ZMM528EurJ-H5WCbPM_YodBi3uE=MwZBnSUT2Yg@mail.gmail.com> <FRAPR01MB1252B940C4B52CDE23AD42D6D1FC0@FRAPR01MB1252.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <DB7PR06MB47926584901A75CEFB5973E7B5FC0@DB7PR06MB4792.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <b301c27d-db9b-9ff8-3771-fc86c5f58dee@ninetiles.com> <FRAPR01MB1252A810545FF74ADF7C4716D1F40@FRAPR01MB1252.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <5c891c8d-62b6-c0af-5388-984d301fe408@gmail.com> <099804f7-3704-c015-71bc-2b094ee3ea53@gmail.com>
From: Frank Fitzek <frank.fitzek@tu-dresden.de>
Message-ID: <18919675-ea7c-ae93-1e53-7625340a081d@tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 20:05:44 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <099804f7-3704-c015-71bc-2b094ee3ea53@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4138BFDF9EF6D67285ACEAAA"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ClientProxiedBy: MSX-L104.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.34.104) To msx-l108.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.34.108)
X-PMWin-Version: 4.0.4, Antivirus-Engine: 3.79.0, Antivirus-Data: 5.80
X-TUD-Virus-Scanned: mailout5.zih.tu-dresden.de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6gip/-hNuH8WLP7mKLDGzhkqg1J5oPXE>
Subject: Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G
X-BeenThere: 6gip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Issues in 6th Generation Mobile Network System \(6gip\)" <6gip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6gip>, <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6gip/>
List-Post: <mailto:6gip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip>, <mailto:6gip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 19:05:52 -0000

Happy New Year !

Are there already 5G SA networks? Or better on which networks did the 
author test the data rate? SA and NSA makes a huge difference.
FF



On 07/01/2021 19:02, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
> I recently read an article in the New York Times where the writer 
> tested a few 5G smartphones on some cellular networks and some places 
> in USA.
>
> He said that 5G bandwidth looked higher than 4G+ to him in some places 
> but he felt that better in open areas rather than indoors.  It was not 
> significantly higher, just a little bit higher.
>
> I think what 5G needs is these intelligent reflecting surfaces which 
> might help increase coverage in a more energy-efficient manner, maybe 
> less risky for health, and avoid somehow in some cases societal 
> opposition.
>
> We cant dream about hundred Gbit/s bandwidths for IP on 6G if the 
> increase from 4G to 5G bandwidths is not at leastten times more.
>
> If 4G is 50Mbit/s and 5G is 100Mbit/s then we cant expect 6G to be 
> 100GBit/s.
>
> Le 03/12/2020 à 12:32, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> 3. use of meta surfaces (aka Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces).  This is
>> a feature newly proposed in 6G that was never mentioned in earlier
>> generations, but it is a natural tool in the bag of the radio inclined
>> designer.  If range is not enough then put a reflecing surface there to
>> extend the range.  New in 6G is that these surfaces seem to be more
>> intelligent at PHY layer - it's not just a piece of concrete (like a
>> mirror) but some nano electronics are put on it to reflect in a more
>> intelligent way. 
>

-- 

Frank H.P. Fitzek
Professor
Deutsche Telekom Chair of Communication Networks
Institute of Communication Technology
Technische Universität Dresden

mobile: +49 151 160 00003
phone:  +49 351 463 33945
fax:    +49 351 463 37163

web:	cn.ifn.et.tu-dresden.de



5G Lab Germany - Coordinator - 5Glab.de
CeTI - Speaker - ceti.tu-dresden.de
Smart System Hub - Speaker - smart-systems-hub.de