Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul and Alex,
I can only agree that C-V2X or PC5 (as 3GPPs V2V link is called) is very important here.
Implementations also support IPv6 (see e.g. https://site.eettaiwan.com/events/iovev2019/dl/03_Keysight.pdf) and a planned SDR implementation based on Open source SDR LTE software suite from Software Radio Systems (SRS) also allow for IPv6 communication since some time (https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE/blob/master/CHANGELOG).
We hopefully will be able until end of this year to report some measurements …
Best regards
Dirk

From: its <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. September 2019 16:47
To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status

Hi Alex,
Thanks for your opinion and status of 5G.

I think IPWAVE needs to consider IPv6 over C-V2X based on 5G because
C-V2X has higher bandwidth than 802.11-OCB based on WAVE.

My SKKU group is studying how to efficiently support IPv6 over C-V2X in vehicular networks.
This will be a possible WG item for IPWAVE WG.

Thanks.

Paul

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:50 PM Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Le 25/09/2019 à 16:13, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Hi
>
> Le 20/09/2019 à 04:23, Sharon Barkai and Dick Roy ([RR]) wrote:
> [...]
>>> */[RR] This is a really long story, however, C-V2X is being specified
>>> as an alternative to US DSRC, not as a cellular access technology
>>> since that’s already available and deployed.  The reason LTE Release
>>> 14 and successors is being specified has nothing to do with its
>>> lineage as a child of cellular; in fact, it is provably a square peg
>>> being forced into a round hole and we all know how that generally
>>> ends up, and that’s a story for another day/*
>>>
>>> The 5G evolution is supposed to match the latency of peer to peer WiFi.
>
> When that matches, WiFi will have leaped forward to below
> 100micro-second latency.  This was so (cellular catching up with a
> leaping forward WiFi latency) since the invention of WiFi 20 years ago,
> and it wont change.  It's a constant of evolution.
>
>>> */[RR] 5G is nothing but hype at the moment
>
> Here is a more precise status, according to my personal understanding.
> This obviously differs from many people's understandings, who may be
> more knowledgeable.
>
> In France, frequencies for use in 5G radio would start to be discussed
> now in September, with allocation towards December.  The allocation is
> similar, but not quite like, the process that was used for 3G: auction
> sales.  The differences from 3G are: (1) it is not expected to generate
> huge revenues for gov't and (2) some sales, like of the 3.5GHz band,
> would actually be a re-allocation from what was previously allocated to
> wimax operators  (e.g. SDH in France) and to City Authority (like Mayor)
> in places where there was no operator).
>
> Obviously, until these frequencies are allocated one cant really talk
> about 5G deployment on public roads, even if...
>
> If one wants to talk about 5G like when talking a higher bandwidth and
> lower latency than 4G, then one assumes 4G to be 50ms latency and
> 2Mbit/s bandwidth.  One can talk then about 25ms latency and 10Mbit/s,
> and claim that to be 5G.  But it is not 5G.  It is just another Class or
> Category of 4G.  In theory, one can still be 4G and run at 1Gbps (e.g.
> Category 16).
>
> Also, one can talk about a higher bandwidth outdoors network by running
> 802.11 WiFi on 5.4 GHz and, why not, at 5.9GHz.
>
> Colleagues call these 'acrobatics 5G'.
>
> This is when one wonders: what is 5G anyways? with its associated
> question: why was the predecessor of 5G called 'LTE' (Long Term
> Evolution), or where is the long term?  Is 5G LTE?
>
> With respect to other countries, I heard two recent announcements, about
> Spain and Germany.
>
> They both claim 5G is deployed in the respective areas.
>
> This claims 15 cities in Spain on June 15th, by Vodafone:
> https://www.xataka.com/empresas-y-economia/red-5g-comercial-vodafone-espana-tiene-fecha-lanzamiento-15-ciudades-15-junio
>
>
> This claims 5 cities in Germany, but it does not say when, by Deutsche
> Telekom:
> https://www.telekom.de/start/netzausbau?wt_mc=alias_1070_netzausbau
>
> As hardware for end users, this is the situation now:
> - there is no 5G smartphone for sale in France.  I guess it is the same
>    in more countries.  If it were different, it would be an isolation
>    easily spot by many.
> - iphone 11 just launched features 'Gigabit-class LTE' and 'LTE
>    Advanced' but no '5G'.  They run on 'LTE Bands' which are your typical
>    frequencies below 5GHz for cellular communications, but nowhere like a
>    26GHz of 5G.  No such band is called a '5G band'.

Further details after searches of public documents:

iphone 11 pro understands a 5G frequency band:

it is specified to understand several frequency bands, among which also
TD-LTE Band number 42, which is 3400MHz - 3600MHz.  This band is a 5G
band.  Part of this band (3490MHz - 3600MHz) is being considered for
allocation by regulator ARCEP.  It has not yet been allocated, but under
discussion.

ARCEP considers to also allocate Band 43 at 3600MHz - 3800MHz, for 5G.
But this band is not covered by iphone 11 specs.

ARCEP is silent about the range 3400MHz-3490MHz.  I suspect there might
be some errors here.

iphone 11 pro also understands TD-LTE Band 46 at 5150 MHz - 5925 MHz,
which covers WiFi 5.4GHz and 802.11-OCB at 5.9GHz.  I suspect there
would be some clashes here between deployed Road-Side Units and iphones.

For highways and roads requirements, ARCEP seems to plan to require the
licensee to cover them by December 2025.  And the required bandwidth is
between 50mbit/s to 100Mbit/s and 10ms latency.  These figures are
obviously little incitative, because 2025 is very late, 50mbit/s is what
4G already does and 10ms is much higher than 1ms 802.11-OCB today.

On another hand, ARCEP requires the 5G licensee to support IPv6,
starting end of 2020. (in French: "Le  titulaire  est  tenu  de  rendre
son  réseau  mobile  compatible  avec  le  protocole  de  routage  IPv6
à compter du 31décembre2020.").  This means that by that time, if IPv6
under its form IPv6-over-OCB does not see a huge deployment compared to
just 802.11-OCB WSMP, it might be that IPv6-over-5G on routes would be
more likely.  Which may raise a question of the potential usefulness of
a spec IPv6-over-5G.

So, this is to say that where I live it is not very clear how these
things will unfold.

Alex


> - one can buy off the shelf modules, like miniPCIe (I have a list) that
>    go very high in terms of bandwidth, well beyond what normal 4G would
>    do, but couldnt really use them at that high parameters.
>
> Alex
>
>>> and simply matching the latency would be no reason to switch from
>>> DSRC to another access technology for V2V safety, though nothing
>>> prevents the addition of 5G NR access technologies in ITS stations
>>> (aka OBUs) for other uses. /*
>
> I agree.
>
> [...]
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its


--
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>