Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 05 October 2019 08:22 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@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 C0512120119 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 01:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4xPO2vmptmy2 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 01:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22b.google.com (mail-oi1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6346012004E for <its@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Oct 2019 01:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id a15so1723832oic.0 for <its@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Oct 2019 01:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eMwhuY0l7Yoh+bCZpBMFHEYu+RKaxGHZeIf2VTzYLYQ=; b=LmhuOqriK3wSIj4rRoSqoXnJeD6LF15hvStiX3hEgPqgTS6IlzwbB8IwFhNiqHODAt Wv1YrFBbLc3LOcNJWKyLzGH7G04n6DZ+WgCxyGmM0L7jezTnqNw3gOdBVDpqerqvA7VM dHCX4iNGvzW/f50Xkkm6W/WckBCpVXssj2/5L0+bLJYMpElkog63rfplqdvUy7wYoqF9 OJ8eenYLnSEMlbaSD+jsceJN5ktlHHT4dCpLvE8QyjKUHPctgGU4eLsHdvarAgMOv/Kb xj85iE0TXrqOHkJtr/+M9uKXnkGRfa0pZeC/hPW1L39Q64NdbiuNbdzkbzhB1GJLxFkj bz3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eMwhuY0l7Yoh+bCZpBMFHEYu+RKaxGHZeIf2VTzYLYQ=; b=OkI3csz7wZVt9nEW1bXPUcOYpoz1FpDX5LuK2KQaDSb6xiL+pkmf1zp358k8oT/TxI 7PXkAT5k7Y3sNs9GKEhqI0Wybxg8uQhHto9/eAfITD1mfJFf4OvvrrvA6Y6yYrDAPQ1I +f1oJCdQKEYWejAJ14ruvcahjFZukftI/qOEkiZkI4mUt3AsAb3zMBu0XjdmA6d2gJ/Y evgzQWf9Ek1MdrEH59nJ0YNvFTzQ4FxnlDjE9uBIOsEyghwDkmeNtsn0YrsRYuo3Itao H7edK0UYv5fOFSPFFQtsTxewfvn1IMkxM+R+bEPzKkYNpyfUmlRrtUDObubZPmdYGBQL 9RIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGEe+MDPmHNbhEMaDHe2spKfttFwc2sl9zR+QTvmjal0pFobMH FjWDbSU7hwtB9k4R7o5Mf7S5XVIOhl5u1qCyqsQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwAadzqIi1++sDEJsnsx4xeOUY5uOIxecRGWlgJdjT807MzH4Pnjp91oNNoNuBSGrHeYfrye+wCyPWlJMuqg0=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4858:: with SMTP id v85mr10227386oia.134.1570263728633; Sat, 05 Oct 2019 01:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156862357770.28196.6343819812576579929@ietfa.amsl.com> <d6358cfd-9c8f-3c27-28a5-d7ae20280ec8@joelhalpern.com> <EE82B5CD-B2AC-4590-9F6C-8543E30A68FF@gmail.com> <B452A31E-150E-4AE4-A693-A18AA630AB87@cisco.com> <109358A7-6F14-44DF-9113-3F36DE2194B5@getnexar.com> <BN6PR22MB00364FB9221E42BB7862C424DE890@BN6PR22MB0036.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <d41c82441d50469ba13955af54fe6577@NALASEXR01H.na.qualcomm.com> <A175A6F452C44636ACCAEEC48CF8B1A7@SRA6> <3EAFD2B8-5FA0-475C-B436-A6ACFB32EED5@getnexar.com> <f1976b08-9fbb-6237-c7a4-fb0b84f636df@gmail.com> <3519a3de-d1b9-9651-6f9f-1baf2a93e3e3@gmail.com> <CAPK2Deyqvy51sY+_+hb8DJgvsSYwubg-TOE9GbLRSKqNLnV_tA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPK2Deyqvy51sY+_+hb8DJgvsSYwubg-TOE9GbLRSKqNLnV_tA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 10:21:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89mKnT4-YCZCQqm=yZKipK+R_hwrMCs4BakbFOY1pxbGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, skku_iotlab_seminar@googlegroups.com, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfbb7705942583fc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/S6gqxp1Pt_0JELRJtNRKzvxHVIw>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status
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: Sat, 05 Oct 2019 08:22:12 -0000
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:47 PM Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > It is good to consider both or more which are used, even if the bandwidth is less or cost is higher. > 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 I agree it is interesting for our WG. AB > > Thanks. > > Paul > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:50 PM Alexandre Petrescu < > alexandre..petrescu@gmail.com <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> 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 >> > lisp@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> > > > -- > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> > _______________________________________________ > its mailing list > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Ratliff, Stanley
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… William Whyte
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… William Whyte
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] 5G deployment status (was: Re: [lisp] I-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status (was: Re: [lisp… Sharon Barkai
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] [lisp] I-D Action: draft-barkai-lisp… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Andre Puschmann
- Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status Alexandre Petrescu