[ipwave] C-V2X cheap cards or modules? (was: Re: what is C-V2X: PC5 mode 4 'sidelink' without infrastructure, or V2I?)

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am looking for C-V2X cheap cards or modules to be used in PCs.

Earlier it was suggested 'WNC', but the WNC URL no longer works. 
https://www.wnc.com.tw/index.php?action=pro_cate_third_close&top_id=106&scid=123&tid=145

What is a cheap C-V2X card (mini PCIe, or M.2, or USB, or similar)?

Alex

Le 28/10/2021 à 22:22, Dick Roy a écrit :
>
> I suggest everyone STOP using C-V2X altogether.  Eliminate it from 
> your vocabulary.  As indicated below, use the right term for the 
> technology being referred to and there will be no ambiguity.
>
> RR
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*its [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Jérôme Härri
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 7:18 AM
> *To:* 'Alexandre Petrescu'; 'IPWAVE WG'
> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] what is C-V2X: PC5 mode 4 'sidelink' without 
> infrastructure, or V2I?
>
> Dear Alex,
>
> I forgot one point: both LTE V2X and NR V2X from the 3GPP 
> specifications include PC5 and Uu support for both control and data 
> planes. As Dirk indicated, there is not such a V2X name restricting to 
> purely V2V, a least from 3GPP perspective.
>
> BR,
>
> Jérôme
>
> *From:*its <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Jérôme Härri
> *Sent:* Thursday, 28 October 2021 15:56
> *To:* 'Alexandre Petrescu' <[e-mail]>; 'IPWAVE WG' 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] what is C-V2X: PC5 mode 4 'sidelink' without 
> infrastructure, or V2I?
>
> Dear Alex,
>
> My perception: C-V2X is US terminology and applied initially as LTE 
> V2X rel.14 but now it is used for NR V2X Rel.16 to differentiate from 
> LTE V2X Rel.14 (again, in the US).
>
> My suggestion is: we use the standard names… 3GPP LTE V2X rel.14 or 
> 3GPP NR V2X rel. 16  at least we have a ‘clear’ understanding of what 
> it means and not means (and here, the release numbers are important…as 
> (now wanted to add more confusion), there is a 3GPP LTE V2X rel.15 
> with a minor modification on the V2X PHY, but which makes it NOT 
> background compatible with 3GPP LTE V2X rel.14…
>
> Also, when we refer to 3GPP NR V2X rel.16, we only have one and only 
> one specified scheduler (mode 2(a)) which is more or less the same as 
> the one from LTE V2X rel.14. As far as I know, 3GPP is discussing the 
> other modes (mode 2 (b)(c)(d) in further releases)…and well, any NR 
> V2X rel. 16 mode 1 will not be published and available as we can expect.
>
> Yet, if you want to make it short and generic, we can use LTE V2X and 
> NR V2X, or 5G NR V2X (although the 5G is just for branding in that case).
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> BR,
>
> Jérôme
>
> *From:*its <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Alexandre Petrescu
> *Sent:* Thursday, 28 October 2021 15:25
> *To:* IPWAVE WG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [ipwave] what is C-V2X: PC5 mode 4 'sidelink' without 
> infrastructure, or V2I?
>
> A few definitions of C-V2X circulate:
>
> C-V2X is LTE PC5 interface mode 4 'sidelink': it means it works only 
> in a V2V or V2P manner, and thus C-V2X does not need infrastructure. 
> This has been said a few times.
>
> C-V2X means also V2I.  This is said by e.g. the SIM8100 module 
> description saying "The SIM8100 is a C-V2X module which supports C-V2X 
> functionality through a PC5 interface for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), 
> vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P), and vehicle-toinfrastructure (V2I) 
> applications" at https://www.simcom.com/product/SIM8100.html or "The 
> module will most commonly be found in telematics boxes, telematics 
> control units, advanced driver-assistance systems, C-V2X (V2V, _V2I_, 
> V2P) systems)" at https://www.quectel.com/product/5g-c-v2x-ag55xq-series
>
> What do you think?  Does C-V2X need infrastructure or can C-V2X work 
> without infrastructure?
>
> This is can guide our activity of IPv6 for C-V2X.
>
> Alex
>