Re: [ipwave] PC5 and 5.9GHz?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/04/2019 à 20:29, Jerome Haerri a écrit :
> the standard (3GPP) even forces it (only freq. allowed for PC5 (LTE rel.14)...so yes..

Thank you.  I really did not know that.

A colleague told that to me a few days ago but I was inclined to not trust.

I was thinking maybe PC5 is at 5.4GHz (not 5.9), or maybe a new 
frequency at 800 MHz, or 3.5GHZ, or 20-something, but not there where 
OCB runs (5.9).

I hope there is understanding about risks of putting together non 802.11 
headers with 802.11 headers in the same frequency.

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.

> 
> 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?

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
> 
>