Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

RSU antennas along routes, and while not in intersection RSU 
deployments, should be directional, not omni-directional.

These omnidirectional antennas make no sense if they are not in the 
center of something (e.g. the center of intersection).  They should be 
directional, with a certain angle of aperture.

Alex

Le 13/02/2017 à 16:33, François Simon a écrit :
> Two Antennae: Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) technology - The
> antennas at each end of the communications circuit are combined to
> minimize errors and optimize data speed.
>
> Non-intersection RSUs:
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 3:42 AM
> To: François Simon <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>
>
>
> Le 11/02/2017 à 01:30, François Simon a écrit :
>> Both are arguable.
>>
>> a) Antennas:  Depend on applications.  In the picture, this is mostly
>> for intersections where OBE's transmissions comes from all directions.
>> An omni-directional is more appropriate for tolling applications.
>
> If this is for intersection, then why are there _two_ antennas, each
> omni?  IT should be 180deg for each.  It makes no sense to put 2 omnis.
> One omni would be sufficient.
>
> And do they have a figure which is _not_ for intersection? (i.e. for
> along the road?)
>
> Alex
>
>> b) boosters on surge-suppressor......; I do not see the point.  I miss
>> the point.
>> Fygs
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 11:28 AM
>> To: François Simon <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>>
>> Thanks for the note.
>>
>> As a side note, note that omni antennas dont make much sense on pole
>> along roads - should be sector antennas.  This is a common mistake at many sites.
>>
>> In addition to surge-suppressors one should use boosters too, to
>> extend reach.
>>
>> Le 10/02/2017 à 17:12, François Simon a écrit :
>>> I would be very careful to replace RSU with RSR systematically
>>> (global change).  The figure below shows how, in the US, FHWA sees
>>> the implementation (one of several):
>>>
>>>
>>> In this figure, the RSR is in the left hand bottom corner.
>>>
>>> Fygs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: its [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandre
>>> Petrescu
>>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 5:34 AM
>>> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 RSU term
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
>>> RSU term
>>>
>>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>>
>>> We received multiple comments about the RSU term.  The strongest
>>> issue is that apparently there are conflicts between our assumption
>>> of RSU to be a router and FHWA(?) thinking RSU is more like an
>>> interface to a router, or something like a master-RSU controlling (slave?) RSUs.
>>> Unless FHWA tells us they agree RSU is a router, I will modify the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> Old:
>>>> 2.  Terminology
>>> [...]
>>>> RSU: Road Side Unit.
>>>
>>> New:
>>>> RSR: Road Side Router; an IP router equipped with, or connected to,
>>>> at least one interface that is 802.11 and that is an interface that
>>>> operates in OCB mode.
>>>
>>> and substitute RSR for RSU throughout.
>>>
>>> This old 'RSU' term, now RSR, is absolutely needed in the draft when
>>> discussing IP handovers and Mobile IP.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>
>