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

[François Simon <[e-mail]>]

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
>>
>>
>