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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 12:58 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 A1D4712008A for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:58:28 -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 azaxX4TB7hh8 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:58:26 -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 1346F1200E5 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:58:25 -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 xBHCwNia011234 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:58:23 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 57788201D1F for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:58:23 +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 4CEC6201AD0 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:58:23 +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 xBHCwMiq005591 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:58:23 +0100
To: 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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <21bc6269-8be3-31d8-33d8-081488777c38@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:58:22 +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: <8e66d1ad-9a22-ef7b-17d0-950a58c718d8@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/TChLWe8EmOwehsyrJSk26NABtZQ>
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 12:58:29 -0000

in addition to wondering what it means C-V2X
one might wonder whether C-V2X supports IPv6 or not?

also one might wonder whether FCC still considers IPv6 for vehicular 
communications?

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.

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>> 
>> 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>>> 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>>
>>      >  > 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>>
>>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its