Re: [ipwave] Higher bandwidth is a requirement, not a number to avoid

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

When people write apps they need to know the bandwidth they could 
afford.  E.g. I could be brave and try write skype with HD video and 
192KHz audio but that would never work on 56Kbit/s bandwidth modem.

Remark I am saying HD video, and people understand approximately what 
kind of bandwidth is needed, assuming a certain encoder ranging from no 
compression to high performance H. something.  I am also saying 192KHz 
which is a sampling rate (not bandwidth) but people understand what kind 
od bandwidth that would request, depending on the encoder used ranging 
from RAW (no compression) to high quality open source compression in Ogg.

Avoiding numbers of bandwidth available for IPv6 on ITS-G5 for 
high-quality chipsets means that probably the high quality chipsets 
never tried to send IPv6 on it.  OTherwise they could have seen the 
bandwidth.

On another hand, the bandwidth afforded by IPv6 iperf command on an open 
source DOT11a/10MHz driver is approximately 7mbit/s.  This is why there 
is where the focus of a standard should be: on the open source 
DOT11a/10MHz basis, not on the high-quality chipsets.

Of course, there are also the theoretical numbers (1Mbit/s, 2, 5, 16, 
48, etc). They are obtained from calculations on numbers, not from 
experimenting.   These numbers are theoretical upper limits of actual 
banwidth.  It is well known these limits are never reached.

Le 21/06/2019 à 22:09, Dick Roy a écrit :
>
> “What is the bandwidth afforded by an application using TCP/IPv6 on
>
> ITS-G5/DSRC?”
>
> Applications don’t have bandwidths.  They may have information (aka 
> data) rate requirements often specified in [G/M/K]bits per second, not 
> in Hertz.  Whether or not any particular network and transport layer 
> technology is used is irrelevant.  Not sure what you are asking.
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 2:30 AM
> To: [e-mail]; 'Jérôme Härri'; 'John Kenney'
> Cc: 'its'
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] Higher bandwidth is a requirement, not a number 
> to avoid
>
> Le 20/06/2019 à 16:49, Dick Roy a écrit :
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 7:13 AM
>
> > To: Jérôme Härri; 'John Kenney'
>
> > Cc: 'its'
>
> > Subject: Re: [ipwave] Higher bandwidth is a requirement, not a number to
>
> > avoid
>
> > 
>
> > Le 20/06/2019 à 15:49, Jérôme Härri a écrit :
>
> > 
>
> > [...]
>
> > 
>
> >> as they do not really represent 
>
> > 
>
> >> what an automotive-grade ITS-G5/DSRC is really capable of doing.
>
> > 
>
> > What is the bandwidth of IPv6 demonstrated on ITS-G5/DSRC?
>
> > 
>
> > */[RR] IPV6 does not “have a bandwidth”.  The ITS-G5/DSRC access layers
>
> > currently have 10MHz (and 20MHz in the US)bandwidth channels specified
>
> > if that’s your question./*
>
> What is the bandwidth afforded by an application using TCP/IPv6 on
>
> ITS-G5/DSRC?
>
> Alex
>
> > 
>
> > Alex
>
> > 
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > 
>
> > its mailing list
>
> > 
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> > 
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>
> > 
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> its mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>