Re: [ipwave] PC5 and 5.9GHz?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/04/2019 à 21:33, Jerome Haerri a écrit :
> 
>> I hope there is understanding about risks of putting together non
>> 802.11 headers with 802.11 headers in the same frequency.
> 
> yes, a big one...and a tive research in fibding a solution..but it is
> slso political. Btw, in the US, you also have OCB 10Mhz headers
> coexisting with 20MHz Rlan wifi headers..also problematic..
> 
>> It is sufficient to drive a little bit around to listen to 5.9GHz
>> and see there is already a lot of 802.11-OCB traffic.  Not sure how
>> can that coexist with PC5 because this latter does not have 802.11
>> headers.
> 
> maybe in a few months I will be able to tell you how...earliest ETSI
> vote in this, March 2020...
>> 
>>> But: it cannot use these frequencies now (well it got some test
>>> freq. in the US) (ITU in charge for spectrum allocation in EU) as
>>> the coexistence (PHY/MAC) with ITS-G5 needs to be solved first..
>> 
>> Is PC5 using IP, like 5G does?
> 
> well, 3GPP allows IPv4, IPv6, and ‘non-IP’

Ok; so I can not stop myself from asking what kind of link-layer headers 
is the PC5 using when in 'non-IP' mode.  I suppose in IP mode it does 
not use any link-layer headers, like a normal 3GPP link from UE to base 
station.

> 
> yet, in EU, PC5 requires the ETSI geonet stack to operate on 5.9GHz,
> so no (or through geonet) As it needs the ETSI security framework
> (even refered in 3GPP LTE sidelink standard) and use per packet
> wireless congestion control ..so, good old story..
> 
> btw, not clear yet that 5G-V2X will use IP on PC5..too early to
> tell..unless you have news about it (or you meant LTE Uu, which uses
> IP)

for clarification: I meant PC5, not LTE Uu.

PC5 is the one without base station.  That is the most similar to the 
use of OCB in convoys.

Alex

> 
> BR,
> 
> Jérôme
> 
> 
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>> BR, Jérôme Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 19:08, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>> <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Le 18/04/2019 à 15:57, Jerome Haerri a écrit : Dear All, just
>>>>> minor modification to avoid misunderstanding:
>>>>>> the EU is quite clear: there should not be technology ban
>>>>>> on the ITS-G5 SPECTRUM
>>>> 
>>>> I dont understand ban.
>>>> 
>>>> My question is simple: is PC5 at 5.9GHZ?
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry about the confusion, Jérôme Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>>>> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 15:50, Jerome Haerri
>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit : Hi Alex,
>>>>>> Dirk,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the EU is quite clear: there should not be technology ban
>>>>>> on the ITS-G5 as long as it is for ’safety-related’
>>>>>> applications for road ITS. This being said, for another
>>>>>> technology to use ITS-G5 spectrum, it must coexist with
>>>>>> existing technologies, and be commercially available.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For now, the EU commission in its DA estimates that these
>>>>>> two points are not there yet, thus recommened to use ITS-G5
>>>>>> on the CCH, only (the EU still pushes for both technologies
>>>>>> in other channels for Day 2 applications..no regulation
>>>>>> yet)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Indeed as of today, LTE-V2X and ITS-G5 cannot coexist at
>>>>>> PHY and MAC layer..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Both ETSI ERM and C2C are working on PHY and MAC extentions
>>>>>> for coexistence.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yet, indeed even at L3, we should envision ways to
>>>>>> differentiate between technologies. Let’s see once PHY/MAC
>>>>>> coexistence will be completed...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jérôme
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 15:17, Alexandre Petrescu
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Le 17/04/2019 à 14:32, [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> a écrit : Hi Alex, I
>>>>>>>> strongly agree with you that we need a precise
>>>>>>>> definition on what we mean with cellular V2X (often
>>>>>>>> denoted as C-V2X in general – so covering LTE and
>>>>>>>> 5G/NR) – especially since – as you correctly pointed
>>>>>>>> out - 3GPP has none such official definition as LTE-V2X
>>>>>>>> or NR-V2X . However when defining LTE-V2X we should be
>>>>>>>> aware that there are two different modes of operation
>>>>>>>> for V2X communication in 3GPP cellular systems (as also
>>>>>>>> described in Annex A.5 of PS document
>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-08).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
E.g. according to 3GPP TR 21.914 giving a Release 14 (i.e. LTE) 
Description and Summary of Rel-14 Work Items, but similarly also for 
5G/NR or Rel. 15 and higher (here in still draft TR 21.915) the modes of 
operation are described as
>>>>>>>> -Direct V2X communication between UEs over a 3GPP
>>>>>>>> sidelink (PC5 interface) -V2X communication over LTE-Uu
>>>>>>>> interface (i.e. via base stations / eNBs)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dirk,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A colleague in a group perform a study of latency
>>>>>>> comparison between 802.11-OCB and LTE-Uu between cars.
>>>>>>> It is simulation.  They found numbers comparing the
>>>>>>> latency.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On another hand,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do we know whether the use of the PC5 interface is
>>>>>>> allowed at 5.9GHz?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That may have an impact on an IP-over-OCB thing: - if PC5
>>>>>>> is allowed at 5.9GHz then the only way to make sure it
>>>>>>> co-exists with OCB at same frequency is to use Traffic
>>>>>>> Class or Flow Label field in IPv6 header.  That is a good
>>>>>>> work item.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If that work item works, then one may need to map these
>>>>>>> QoS fields into the QoS fields of the 802.11 header,
>>>>>>> fields required in the IPv6-over-OCB document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In addition there are 2 different modes for
>>>>>>>> PC5/sidelink: -in coverage of cellular system with LTE
>>>>>>>> assistance -out of coverage: ad-hoc mode w/o assistance
>>>>>>>> … very similar to OCB. So I would recommend to specify
>>>>>>>> more exactly what we have in mind. LTE-V2X: the
>>>>>>>> transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over
>>>>>>>> a cellular link such as 3GPP 4G – both via base station
>>>>>>>> and directly between vehicles Or more general: C-V2X:
>>>>>>>> the transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP
>>>>>>>> over a cellular link such as 3G, 4G and successors –
>>>>>>>> both in infrastructure mode (via base station / Uu
>>>>>>>> interface) and ad-hoc mode (direct link / sidelink
>>>>>>>> interface) if available [since sidelink is only
>>>>>>>> specified for 4G/5G] Or one may even reflect
>>>>>>>> differentiation between those modes in the acronym
>>>>>>>> (which I would not recommend here being not in scope
>>>>>>>> for this document) Just my 2 cents Kind regards Dirk 
>>>>>>>> *From:*its <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On Behalf Of *Alexandre
>>>>>>>> Petrescu *Sent:* Mittwoch, 17. April 2019 13:18 *To:*
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> *Subject:* [ipwave]
>>>>>>>> LTE-V2X term in Problem Statement document Hi
>>>>>>>> IPWAVErs, The IPWAVE Problem Statement document uses
>>>>>>>> the term 'LTE-V2X' at one point. ("e.g., IEEE
>>>>>>>> 802.11-OCB and LTE-V2X") I would like to suggest to
>>>>>>>> make a careful definition of the term 'LTE-V2X'. One
>>>>>>>> would expect the term 'LTE-V2X' to be defined precisely
>>>>>>>> at 3GPP or similar.  But that is not the case.  The
>>>>>>>> 3GPP document that is closest to this term is
>>>>>>>> RP-161298, publicly available, defines the term
>>>>>>>> 'LTE_V2X' (remark underscore '_', instead of dash
>>>>>>>> '-'). I suggest the addition of the following term in
>>>>>>>> the Problem Statement draft: LTE-V2X: the transmission
>>>>>>>> of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over a cellular
>>>>>>>> link such as 3G, 4G and successors. Alex
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its
>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ its mailing
>>>>>> list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
>