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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

With respect to the channel width 20MHz capability, which would probably 
offer higher bandwidth and less latency.

I received in private several replies from at least 4 people.  I also 
had a face to face meeting with our partners.

I want to say something so I am better understood: it is a _requirement_ 
to get higher bandwidth; it is not a number to avoid.

If the app people send 10000 RTMAPS 1480byte sized IP messages per 
second then it is so because they need it.  Yes, that is 10KHz messages, 
and not 20Hz; yes, that is 1428byte IP message and not CAM/BSM 633byte.  
And yes, that must be satisfied.  We should not tell these people to 
reduce their outputs.  Reducing their outputs will indeed guarantee 
better latency for ping, but they will be less able to transmit valuable 
data.

We should not tell app people to throttle (reduce) their output down to 
20 messages per second (20Hz).  That is nonsense out of standard 
documents.  The 20Hz/10Hz/1Hz is data relevant out of GPS chipsets - GPS 
has nothing to do with OCB.

If in the first platooning tests it worked with less data transmitted, 
also the convoy was less performing.  We need rich data transmitted, not 
poor data.  We need lidar data out of the lidar directly on OCB, and 
similar other things.

Alex