[ipwave] FCC memo Re: On which channel to run draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-52?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72556120090 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tssFXHYnu0Br for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4903212004D for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHLQrC4049026; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:26:53 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 69712206B4C; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:26:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B606206AFE; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:26:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.26] ([10.11.240.26]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHLQqWr028255; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:26:53 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgSMOkcnJp?= <Jerome.Haerri@eurecom.fr>
References: <e8a25961-5ac9-d35e-77dd-bf86f45cd077@gmail.com> <94a20f19-37e4-d106-6a0f-f0f7c4d314ba@gmail.com> <006c01d5b4eb$66db4ce0$3491e6a0$@eurecom.fr>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: its@ietf.org
Message-ID: <e365d023-e234-e0d7-9abc-17a98dfc36fe@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:26:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <006c01d5b4eb$66db4ce0$3491e6a0$@eurecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/MRH9nqFX9iUlWtYu5b5RgaK9CYY>
Subject: [ipwave] FCC memo Re: On which channel to run draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-52?
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:27:00 -0000


Le 17/12/2019 à 16:05, Jérôme Härri a écrit :
> Dear All,
> 
> As far as I remember, the good old BSM channel for OCB still remains
>  available for OCB,

This is not what the FCC memo says.  The FCC memo says "The NPRM seeks
comment on whether to retain the remaining 10 megahertz [5895-5905MHz,
my note] for use by DSRC systems or to dedicate it for C-V2X use."

It is an option to explore, so it is not sure that the control channel
(the one that you seemingly assume to be the 'good old BSM channel')
remains still for BSM.  Even if it still stays for BSM - is now IPv6
allowed on it?  Can we now say safely and publicly that we run IPv6 on
OCB on 5895-5905MHz?

Even if it stays for BSM, is it BSM on 802.11-OCB?  Or BSM on a cellular
link?

That 5895-5905MHz is the control channel.  Often it is said that IPv6
should not be put on the control channel.

> but with coexistence with C-V2X.

The FCC not does not say 'co-existence'.  It gives an either-or option,
between DSRC and CV2X on the 5895-5905MHz channel.  It says 'or', and it
does not say 'and/or'.

I do not know what may make one think there could be co-existence
between OCB and C-V2X in a same band.

Why do you think FCC thinks so?

> Then, the two new channels are for NR V2X (not C-V2X, the report is 
> not fully accurate, as I understood it),

I am not talking about a report of a reporter on the web writing for
larger audience.  I am talking about the FCC memo publicly available at
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-promote-innovation-59-ghz-band
and in more detail at:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361339A1.pdf

For convenience, I paste below the content of that pdf.  For
clarification, I interspersed groups of right brackets containing notes
with the frequencies as I understand them, like this: "[5895-5905MHz, my
note]".

Alex

> Media Contact: Neil Grace, (202) 418-0506 neil.grace@fcc.gov For 
> Immediate Release FCC SEEKS TO PROMOTE INNOVATION IN THE 5.9 GHZ
> BAND WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019

> The Federal Communications Commission today voted to take a fresh and
> comprehensive look at the 5.9 GHz (5.850-5.925 GHz) band, proposing
> rule changes to ensure that this spectrum supports its highest and
> best use for the American people.
> 
> For the past two decades, the entire 75 megahertz of spectrum in the
>  5.9 GHz band has been reserved for use by Dedicated Short-Range 
> Communications (DSRC), a radio service designed to enable 
> vehicle-related communications. However, after 20 years, DSRC still 
> has not been widely deployed, and this spectrum therefore generally 
> remains unused.
> 
> In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to 
> designate the lower 45 megahertz of the band  [5850-5895MHz, my note]
> for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi. This 45 megahertz sub-band can be
> combined with existing unlicensed spectrum [2.4GHz or 5.4GHz, my 
> note] to provide cutting-edge high-throughput broadband applications
>  on channels up to 160 megahertz wide.
> 
> The Commission is proposing to dedicate the remaining 30 megahertz of
> the band [5895-5925MHz, my note] for use by transportation and 
> vehicle safety-related communication services. Specifically, in the 
> NPRM, the Commission proposes to revise its rules to provide Cellular
> Vehicle to Everything (CV2X), an emerging standard for transportation
> applications, with exclusive access to the upper 20 megahertz of the
> band [5905-5925MHz, my note]. Under the Commission’s current rules,
> no spectrum is allocated for C-V2X. The NPRM seeks comment on whether
> to retain the remaining 10 megahertz [5895-5905MHz, my note] for use
> by DSRC systems or to dedicate it for C-V2X use.
> 
> The Commission’s decision to revisit use of the band was prompted by
>  the slow deployment of the DSRC service, the emergence of new 
> transportation and other communication technologies, and escalating 
> demand for unlicensed operations like Wi-Fi. The NPRM seeks to 
> achieve a balanced approach that will both improve automobile safety
>  and unleash more wireless innovation for the benefit of the American
>  people.
> 
> Action by the Commission December 12, 2019 by Notice of Proposed 
> Rulemaking (FCC 19- 129). Chairman Pai, Commissioners O’Rielly, Carr,
> Rosenworcel, and Starks approving and issuing separate statements. ET
> Docket No. 19-138 ###
> 
> Media Relations: (202) 418-0500 / ASL: (844) 432-2275 / TTY: (888) 
> 835-5322 / Twitter: @FCC / www.fcc.gov This is an unofficial 
> announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a 
> Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 
> F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).


> So, I think it is still valid.
> 
> BR,
> 
> Jérôme
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: its <its-bounces@ietf.org> On
> Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 15:50
> To: its@ietf.org Subject: [ipwave] On which channel to run 
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-52?
> 
> I would like to ask on which channel to run 
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-52?
> 
> I am asking because I think under the new recent FCC plan there is no
> channel for it.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list 
> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>