Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 13:47 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 A8AF512082E for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:47:57 -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 rONLoBIakXnu for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:47:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 D862C1200A4 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHDloSk032151; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:47:50 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 270A72064A9; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:47:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185B5203D37; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:47:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.20] ([10.11.240.20]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHDln5P002231; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:47:49 +0100
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Cc: its <its@ietf.org>
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <c680bd31-5f87-6fc9-60c8-2a0af9787483@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_aW4x4LevDY9DGCDic6OpA1==WcVKb9S+1x93apjBYDw@mail.gmail.com> <cfe932bc-999d-1d68-f657-52c8e24d5c6b@gmail.com> <CADnDZ88zRZQkYZOEAUxSQcQSWyRTj3gMGCRcAw-ZAauYBHZ2-A@mail.gmail.com> <8e66d1ad-9a22-ef7b-17d0-950a58c718d8@gmail.com> <21bc6269-8be3-31d8-33d8-081488777c38@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_ozn2ax7eAx2jG+ZAE--1p+bREV+QpY1x5JL68Sn7fWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d18b2539-863e-c675-3fc0-502dd5c8247b@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:47:49 +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: <CADnDZ8_ozn2ax7eAx2jG+ZAE--1p+bREV+QpY1x5JL68Sn7fWg@mail.gmail.com>
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/N9H8m0We2VfjnE_9JvtFXbSTGbE>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves
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 13:47:58 -0000


Le 17/12/2019 à 14:27, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:58 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     in addition to wondering what it means C-V2X
>     one might wonder whether C-V2X supports IPv6 or not?
> 
> 
> yes it should support IPv6, all network in the world specially 4G 
> cellular and 5G are supporting,
> 
> 
>     also one might wonder whether FCC still considers IPv6 for vehicular
>     communications?
> 
> 
> internet services is a must now, but other services should be available 
> also,
> 
> 
>     and, if FCC keeps only the 5895-5905MHz channel, also called Control
>     Channel, for DSRC, and on which it still would like to forbid (and
>     other
>     times to not forbid) IPv6, then one wonders whether the IPv6-over-OCB
>     spec can be of any use anymore.
> 
> 
> yes it will be in use don't worry,

on which channel?

Alex

> 
> AB
> 
> 
>     Alex
> 
>     Le 17/12/2019 à 13:05, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>      >
>      >
>      > Le 17/12/2019 à 12:05, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:59 PM Alexandre Petrescu
>      >> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>>
>      >> wrote:
>      >>
>      >>     have people elsewhere paid money to get a license to talk in
>     the
>      >> 5.9GHz
>      >>     space?
>      >>
>      >> in the article is says the tax payers will be apposing because the
>      >> cities already used money for the  DSRC, and it mentions that
>     FCC plan
>      >> will KILL and waste a lot of money of city investment by city
>     covernment.
>      >
>      > Right, I think it is the money they spent on deploying the DSRC
>      > technology, not on spectrum.
>      >
>      > That is indeed lots of money in itself.  Even in Europe there are
>      > numerous deployments of RSUs permanently attached to poles along
>      > highways.  All these RSUs and their spectrum were created and
>     reserved
>      > by starting from USA initiatives on DSRC.
>      >
>      > I wonder what happens to all these investments in Europe if USA
>     changes
>      > tack with respect to 5.9GHz allocation to 802.11-OCB.
>      >
>      > I think there are large misunderstandings in this FCC plan.
>      >
>      > There are other ideas that were discussed privately and publicly
>     about
>      > reserving spectrum for a particular technology (spectrum should be
>      > reserved for application kind, not for a particular PHY or MAC -
>     in that
>      > sense it seems strange to refuse DSRC but allocate for C-V2X),
>     and about
>      > reserving spectrum but still free of use (how can one reserve
>     something
>      > but still allow every one to do whatever they want in it).  There
>     are
>      > many contradictions.
>      >
>      > Alex
>      >
>      >>
>      >> AB
>      >>
>      >>     (not in Europe a single person paid such money)
>      >>
>      >>     Le 17/12/2019 à 11:56, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>      >>      > Hi Alex,
>      >>      >
>      >>      > I think it is still a debate and not final decision, IMO
>     it is not
>      >>      > possible change the spectrum while people are already
>     using it
>      >>     and paid
>      >>      > money for it, therefore, it is only a future plan and may
>     not be
>      >>     applied
>      >>      > in all locations in the US. Also I would like to know the
>     opinion
>      >>     of US
>      >>      > participants on this issue please.
>      >>      >
>      >>      > AB
>      >>      >
>      >>      > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alexandre Petrescu
>      >>      > <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>      >>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>
>      >>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
>      >>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>     <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      >     Le 17/12/2019 à 01:01, Russ Housley a écrit :
>      >>      >      >
>      >>      >
>      >>
>      >>
>     https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/fcc-moves-plan-forward-to-chop-up-vehicle-safety-airwaves/
> 
>      >>
>      >>      >     [...]
>      >>      >      > The FCC plan would divide 75 MHz of the safety
>     spectrum
>      >>     between WiFi
>      >>      >      > and auto safety applications. The FCC proposal
>     allocates
>      >>     20 MHz for a
>      >>      >      > newer V2X technology, known as C-V2X, and leaves
>     10 MHz
>      >>     for either
>      >>      >      > C-V2X or DSRC.
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      > AB> they will need to deliver the technology and
>     implement it,
>      >>      >
>      >>      > It is indeed a plan that invites to think about the future.
>      >>      >
>      >>      > An implementation of IPv6 over OCB that uses a 20MHz channel,
>      >>     instead of
>      >>      > 10MHz, would no longer be 'illegal'.
>      >>      >
>      >>      > I would like to ask whether FCC considers this potential
>     C-V2X
>      >> 20MHz
>      >>      > channel to still be free of use for everyone (like the
>     current
>      >> 5.9GHz
>      >>      > band) or will it be licensed and paid for? (like e.g. the
>     2.6 GHz
>      >>     band
>      >>      > of LTE).
>      >>      >
>      >>      > AB> I think it should be like WiFi usedby all free,
>      >>      >
>      >>      > Alex
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      >
>      >>      >  > _______________________________________________
>      >>      >  > its mailing list
>      >>      >  > its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>> <mailto:its@ietf.org
>     <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>      >>     <mailto:its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>>>
>      >>      >  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>      >>      >  >
>      >>      >
>      >>      > _______________________________________________
>      >>      > its mailing list
>      >>      > its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> <mailto:its@ietf.org
>     <mailto:its@ietf.org>> <mailto:its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>      >>     <mailto:its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>>>
>      >>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>      >>
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > its mailing list
>      > its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     its mailing list
>     its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>