Re: [ipwave] PC5 and 5.9GHz?

Dear All, 

just minor modification to avoid misunderstanding:
> the EU is quite clear: there should not be technology ban on the ITS-G5 SPECTRUM

Sorry about the confusion,

Jérôme

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 15:50, Jerome Haerri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr> 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 <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Le 17/04/2019 à 14:32, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de 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 <its-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexandre Petrescu
>>> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 17. April 2019 13:18
>>> *To:* its@ietf.org
>>> *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
>> its@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its