Re: [6gip] continueing the discussion on B5G

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 08 January 2021 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 36A133A03FA for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:18:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 Fl0AUgUj8sDg for <6gip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:18:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 9E3013A0A26 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 108II7eZ030963 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:18:07 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D2C8E20D480 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:18:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C834920D377 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:18:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.0.53] ([10.14.0.53]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 108II7jQ008018 for <6gip@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:18:07 +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> <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> <ccdd1c70-5d20-3614-4202-ff3c31b9d479@ninetiles.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57fcbe91-8f94-f5ba-794a-e47b1385fb78@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 19:18:07 +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: <ccdd1c70-5d20-3614-4202-ff3c31b9d479@ninetiles.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6gip/nC_aYWaeF83UDoqwNhKJVNY5YwE>
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 18:18:12 -0000


Le 08/01/2021 à 16:52, John Grant a écrit :
> 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?

It is a good question.  Smaller round or single trip latency and larger
throughput parameters have distinct influence on different apps.  A
youtube watch might not be influenced by the latter but a skype call
might be influenced by the former.

What do you think could be another smartphone easy test to demonstrate
the superiority of 5G over 4G?

Because I think at this time what can be evaluated is a feeling.

The feeling of whether 5G feels faster than 4G to the end user.

It is very easy for some users who have access to 5G smartphones and 5G
deployments to tell whether 5G feels faster than 4G.  In France, these
users are located in a few cities such as Marsilia or Nice and with
operator SFR, but need a 'business' kind of subscription.  In other
countries it might be other operators.

These deployments started in December.

So I wonder how do the 5G users feel about it being faster than 4G?  Is
it _much_ faster than 4G?  Can one download a 4Gb DVD in a few minutes
time?  What does 'google speed test' reply?

What do you think could be another smartphone easy test to demonstrate
the superiority of 5G over 4G?

Alex

>