Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G
John Grant <j@ninetiles.com> Fri, 08 January 2021 15:52 UTC
Return-Path: <j@ninetiles.com>
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 5CE5D3A106F
for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:52:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 DFkpfsl8fJhT for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from know-smtprelay-omc-5.server.virginmedia.net
(know-smtprelay-omc-5.server.virginmedia.net [80.0.253.69])
(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 ADEC43A106E
for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.167] ([86.7.146.7]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPA
id xu3ZkBN77SJHJxu3ZkampN; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:52:05 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [86.7.146.7]
X-Authenticated-User: john.s.grant@ntlworld.com
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.3 cv=ZJn5Z0zb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ETEHsBHxkjOw4DtPg6cH8g==:117
a=ETEHsBHxkjOw4DtPg6cH8g==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=le6d79QuAAAA:8
a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=cfc8yalQWfpOAYzqCrAA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
a=QbAMNLWdp4a7deKPGBBn:22
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>
<18919675-ea7c-ae93-1e53-7625340a081d@tu-dresden.de>
<03859cfc-2635-09ac-b66b-2556afcc7a91@gmail.com>
<e8a8be95-1651-9fbd-6242-7c8bda8b29bb@tu-dresden.de>
<2ed901d6-8d97-0c5a-bcb2-834289f7f282@gmail.com>
From: John Grant <j@ninetiles.com>
Message-ID: <ccdd1c70-5d20-3614-4202-ff3c31b9d479@ninetiles.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:52:04 +0000
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: <2ed901d6-8d97-0c5a-bcb2-834289f7f282@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210107-2, 07/01/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfC9NE7vzXaZRy1gyxcGKIPTgo6TbYhwydf+OMmSCQs94NZVtYMGWk16zuuU5+iL6Oeal9tOj8Ng+vDA6P0He8cznHNz3Z9p1nUOc8do/yPkk/UU0nJGo
gwLTFTBxE8BV7NgTkHPX4dNAkEIh7J4ZhTc=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6gip/foKqV87XOcxLuWCDxlqvecrQNqc>
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 15:52:12 -0000
On 07/01/2021 22:22, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > I would expect, by feeling, that latencies in the core network based on > Ethernet are hugely lower than latencies in the air. In that sense, the > difference NSA vs SA might not impact the feeling of the end user > comparing 5G to 4G or 4G+. > > Basically, it is sufficient to download some large file from youtube and > highest definition (4K?) and try it first with a 4G text above the 5 > bars showing signal quality and then with the 5G text instead. In > theory one should be impressed by the download speed on 5G. Are we talking latency or throughput here? And if latency is it round trip latency, where milliseconds can be important in some applications, or just the delay between requesting something and the content appearing? -- John Grant Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England +44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455 http://www.ninetiles.com -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
- [6gip] Slides from IETF 109 Side Meeting Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [6gip] Slides from IETF 109 Side Meeting Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [6gip] Slides from IETF 109 Side Meeting David Lake
- Re: [6gip] Slides from IETF 109 Side Meeting John Grant
- [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Frank Fitzek
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Frank Fitzek
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G David Lake
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G John Grant
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G Rex Buddenberg