Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 26 September 2019 12:50 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A23C1208D0 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 05:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 tCV94MWdYqf7 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 05:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
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 C62381208E7 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 05:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 x8QCnvW6013409 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:49:57 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3141D201E4D for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:49:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269372018CF for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:49:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x8QCnvhP030539 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:49:57 +0200
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
References: <156862357770.28196.6343819812576579929@ietfa.amsl.com> <d6358cfd-9c8f-3c27-28a5-d7ae20280ec8@joelhalpern.com> <EE82B5CD-B2AC-4590-9F6C-8543E30A68FF@gmail.com> <B452A31E-150E-4AE4-A693-A18AA630AB87@cisco.com> <109358A7-6F14-44DF-9113-3F36DE2194B5@getnexar.com> <BN6PR22MB00364FB9221E42BB7862C424DE890@BN6PR22MB0036.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <d41c82441d50469ba13955af54fe6577@NALASEXR01H.na.qualcomm.com> <A175A6F452C44636ACCAEEC48CF8B1A7@SRA6> <3EAFD2B8-5FA0-475C-B436-A6ACFB32EED5@getnexar.com> <f1976b08-9fbb-6237-c7a4-fb0b84f636df@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3519a3de-d1b9-9651-6f9f-1baf2a93e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:49:57 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f1976b08-9fbb-6237-c7a4-fb0b84f636df@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/-LiVv14uTHjCfypDt4chs9rLgpc>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:50:08 -0000
Le 25/09/2019 à 16:13, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit : > Hi > > Le 20/09/2019 à 04:23, Sharon Barkai and Dick Roy ([RR]) wrote: > [...] >>> */[RR] This is a really long story, however, C-V2X is being specified >>> as an alternative to US DSRC, not as a cellular access technology >>> since that’s already available and deployed. The reason LTE Release >>> 14 and successors is being specified has nothing to do with its >>> lineage as a child of cellular; in fact, it is provably a square peg >>> being forced into a round hole and we all know how that generally >>> ends up, and that’s a story for another day/* >>> >>> The 5G evolution is supposed to match the latency of peer to peer WiFi. > > When that matches, WiFi will have leaped forward to below > 100micro-second latency. This was so (cellular catching up with a > leaping forward WiFi latency) since the invention of WiFi 20 years ago, > and it wont change. It's a constant of evolution. > >>> */[RR] 5G is nothing but hype at the moment > > Here is a more precise status, according to my personal understanding. > This obviously differs from many people's understandings, who may be > more knowledgeable. > > In France, frequencies for use in 5G radio would start to be discussed > now in September, with allocation towards December. The allocation is > similar, but not quite like, the process that was used for 3G: auction > sales. The differences from 3G are: (1) it is not expected to generate > huge revenues for gov't and (2) some sales, like of the 3.5GHz band, > would actually be a re-allocation from what was previously allocated to > wimax operators (e.g. SDH in France) and to City Authority (like Mayor) > in places where there was no operator). > > Obviously, until these frequencies are allocated one cant really talk > about 5G deployment on public roads, even if... > > If one wants to talk about 5G like when talking a higher bandwidth and > lower latency than 4G, then one assumes 4G to be 50ms latency and > 2Mbit/s bandwidth. One can talk then about 25ms latency and 10Mbit/s, > and claim that to be 5G. But it is not 5G. It is just another Class or > Category of 4G. In theory, one can still be 4G and run at 1Gbps (e.g. > Category 16). > > Also, one can talk about a higher bandwidth outdoors network by running > 802.11 WiFi on 5.4 GHz and, why not, at 5.9GHz. > > Colleagues call these 'acrobatics 5G'. > > This is when one wonders: what is 5G anyways? with its associated > question: why was the predecessor of 5G called 'LTE' (Long Term > Evolution), or where is the long term? Is 5G LTE? > > With respect to other countries, I heard two recent announcements, about > Spain and Germany. > > They both claim 5G is deployed in the respective areas. > > This claims 15 cities in Spain on June 15th, by Vodafone: > https://www.xataka.com/empresas-y-economia/red-5g-comercial-vodafone-espana-tiene-fecha-lanzamiento-15-ciudades-15-junio > > > This claims 5 cities in Germany, but it does not say when, by Deutsche > Telekom: > https://www.telekom.de/start/netzausbau?wt_mc=alias_1070_netzausbau > > As hardware for end users, this is the situation now: > - there is no 5G smartphone for sale in France. I guess it is the same > in more countries. If it were different, it would be an isolation > easily spot by many. > - iphone 11 just launched features 'Gigabit-class LTE' and 'LTE > Advanced' but no '5G'. They run on 'LTE Bands' which are your typical > frequencies below 5GHz for cellular communications, but nowhere like a > 26GHz of 5G. No such band is called a '5G band'. Further details after searches of public documents: iphone 11 pro understands a 5G frequency band: it is specified to understand several frequency bands, among which also TD-LTE Band number 42, which is 3400MHz - 3600MHz. This band is a 5G band. Part of this band (3490MHz - 3600MHz) is being considered for allocation by regulator ARCEP. It has not yet been allocated, but under discussion. ARCEP considers to also allocate Band 43 at 3600MHz - 3800MHz, for 5G. But this band is not covered by iphone 11 specs. ARCEP is silent about the range 3400MHz-3490MHz. I suspect there might be some errors here. iphone 11 pro also understands TD-LTE Band 46 at 5150 MHz - 5925 MHz, which covers WiFi 5.4GHz and 802.11-OCB at 5.9GHz. I suspect there would be some clashes here between deployed Road-Side Units and iphones. For highways and roads requirements, ARCEP seems to plan to require the licensee to cover them by December 2025. And the required bandwidth is between 50mbit/s to 100Mbit/s and 10ms latency. These figures are obviously little incitative, because 2025 is very late, 50mbit/s is what 4G already does and 10ms is much higher than 1ms 802.11-OCB today. On another hand, ARCEP requires the 5G licensee to support IPv6, starting end of 2020. (in French: "Le titulaire est tenu de rendre son réseau mobile compatible avec le protocole de routage IPv6 à compter du 31décembre2020."). This means that by that time, if IPv6 under its form IPv6-over-OCB does not see a huge deployment compared to just 802.11-OCB WSMP, it might be that IPv6-over-5G on routes would be more likely. Which may raise a question of the potential usefulness of a spec IPv6-over-5G. So, this is to say that where I live it is not very clear how these things will unfold. Alex > - one can buy off the shelf modules, like miniPCIe (I have a list) that > go very high in terms of bandwidth, well beyond what normal 4G would > do, but couldnt really use them at that high parameters. > > Alex > >>> and simply matching the latency would be no reason to switch from >>> DSRC to another access technology for V2V safety, though nothing >>> prevents the addition of 5G NR access technologies in ITS stations >>> (aka OBUs) for other uses. /* > > I agree. > > [...] > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Ratliff, Stanley
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… William Whyte
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… William Whyte
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] 5G deployment status (was: Re: [lisp] I-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status (was: Re: [lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu