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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 17/12/2019 à 16:23, Jérôme Härri a écrit :
> Dear All,
> 
> Sorry, wrong link..it was a presentation..
> 
> But here is the paper:
> 
> http://www.eurecom.fr/fr/publication/5191/detail/can-ieee-802-11p-and-wi-fi-coexist-in-the-5-9ghz-its-band

Jérôme,

Thanks for the pointer to that article of 2017.  Its introductory parts
are no short of predicting what is happening now with the FCC plan in
the 5850-5895MHz band for WiFi and OCB.

The paper seems to suggest a WiFi-OCB co-existence solution backed by
cognitive radio concept and simulation.

Are there implementations of the WiFi-OCB co-existence in the same band?

Is there a demonstrator showing that WiFi with BSS and WiFi in OCB mode
can live together ok in same band?  A packet dump would be illustrative.

The IPv6-over-OCB draft makes a MUST to use QoS Data headers.  Would
IPv6-over-WiFi-with-BSS also be a MUST to use such headers?

Alex

> 
> BR,
> 
> Jérôme
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Jérôme Härri <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:09 To: 'Alexandre Petrescu'
> <[e-mail]>; 'Abdussalam Baryun'
> <[e-mail]> Cc: 'its' <[e-mail]> Subject: RE:
> [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> We did a study a few months ago related to the coexistence between
> WiFi and OCB on the same channel. Please find it here:
> 
> http://www.eurecom.fr/fr/publication/5395/detail/coexistence-challenges-between-rlans-and-etsi-its-g5-at-5-9ghz-for-future-connected-vehicles
>
>  John Kenney and his team also make a similar study as well...
> 
> The methods have slightly changed since this publication, but
> problems would still occur: which technology should 'vacate' in case
> of interferences? As far as I understood, OCB still is the
> primary..but I leave other expert to correct this statement if I am
> wrong,
> 
> BR,
> 
> Jérôme
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: its <[e-mail]> On Behalf
> Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 15:45 To:
> Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> Cc: its
> <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop
> Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves
> 
> 
> 
> Le 17/12/2019 à 15:29, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>> I think IEEE defines WLAN as IEEE802.11. so any IEEE802.11xx
>> standard can be called a WLAN standard. http://www.ieee802.org/11/
> 
> Right.
> 
> And a channel in the 2.4GHz band (WLAN) can not be linked with a
> channel in the 5.9GHz band (WLAN) because the former is ran with a
> BSS whereas the latter is Outside the Context of a BSS (OCB).  As
> such it is impossible to realize the FCC claim to provide cutting
> edge high throughput bandwidth ("the Commission proposes to designate
> the lower 45 megahertz of the band for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi.
> This 45 megahertz sub-band can be combined with existing unlicensed
> spectrum to provide cutting-edge high-throughput broadband
> applications on channels up to 160 megahertz wide.")
> 
> So if FCC wants to run WiFi with a BSS in this 5875-5895MHz band,
> such as to legitimately call it WiFi, and to achieve high throughput,
> then it can only be in mode with a BSS, and it can not be in mode
> without a BSS (OCB).
> 
>> also IEEE defines WMAN as IEEE802.16 technology, which was replaced
>> by LTE cellular technology.
> 
> There is indeed a similarity.
> 
> But 802.16 is more different than 802.11 than 802.11-OCB is different
> than 802.11.
> 
> 802.16 runs in licensed and paid spectrum (one has to acquire i.e.
> pay money to get) whereas 802.11-OCB one does not have to buy
> spectrum.
> 
> There are other stronger differences I think.
> 
>> 
>> AB
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:54 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
>> <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 17/12/2019 à 14:40, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit :
>>> V2X and V2V communications had two design proposals:
>>> 
>>> 1- using WLAN technology 2- using Cellular network technology
>>> 
>>> So we worked on the first in this WG.
>> 
>> OCB is not the typical WLAN - it is 802.11 in mode OCB.  One cant
>> link OCB channels to non-OCB channels (typical WiFi) such as to
>> make very large channel widhts they seem to need.
>> 
>> 
>> in frequency yes
> 
> In practice: how do you think it is possible to link together two
> channels one from 5.4GHZ WiFi and one from 5.9GHz OCB?
> 
> I think for my part of the 'iw' command.  That allows to link
> together two channels, by specifying the channel width: 10MHz, 20MHz,
> etc.  But they must be adjacent in the first places.
> 
> And one cant do that linking to create a channel that is in part OCB
> and in part non-OCB.  Light can be wave and particle but channel cant
> be both OCB and with BSS.
> 
>> 
>> I think FCC wants much parts of the 5.9GHz for WLAN (not OCB) and 
>> other parts for C-V2X.
>> 
>> FCC is pushing for 5G services/qualities to be achieved.
> 
> It is a good goal that I share entirely.  But dont invade other
> goals.
> 
>> I think it may depend on locations/regions, because some locations
>> may not have good cellular communication signals.
> 
> FCC does not talk about locations or regions.
> 
> But I do agree with you on the principle.  I talked recently to a
> highway operator complaining about the lack of 3G 4G feasibility on
> their roads.
>> 
>> 
>> I think the FCC question is whether or not to keep the
>> 5895-5905MHz for DSRC or to give that too to C-V2X; that is the
>> only question they formulate.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree, they are pushing for that,
>> 
>> 
>> That channel is a place where FCC hardly allowed for IPv6 in the
>> first place.  Even in this WG it was often said that IPv6 is not
>> for that channel.
>> 
>> I think there is no place for OCB mode anywhere and even less for 
>> IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>> we never know what will happen tomorrow.
> 
> BUt we cant work without a solid basis.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> AB
>> 
>> 
>> Alex
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:58 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
>>> <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361339A1.pdf
>>> 
>>>> For Immediate Release FCC SEEKS TO PROMOTE INNOVATION IN
>> THE 5.9 GHZ
>>>> BAND WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019—The Federal Communications 
>>>> Commission today voted[...]
>>> 
>>> What does C in C-V2X mean?  Is it Cellular V2X like in 3GPP?
>> I assume
>>> this is what is meant by C-V2X: point-to-point links from 3GPP.
>>> 
>>> Yes, there are 4G and 5G
>>> 
>>> Or is C-V2X something more like BSM messages put on 802.11
>> kind of link
>>> (be it OCB or more traditional WiFi)?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> no it is cellular network communication  technologies/protocols
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What does C-V2X mean entirely?  Is it sending BSM messages or
>> is it also
>>> sending CAM messages (in 3GPP there are only CAM messages
>> AFAIremember).
>>> 
>>> What are the implementations of C-V2X  and on which hardware
>> from which
>>> manufacturer?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> see our draft mentions c-v2x:
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-03#
>>
>> 
page-19
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I think it is important that we do more work for the C-V2X
>> section in
>>> the draft as well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Detailing this term is key to understand the plan and to be
>> able to
>>> answer the consultation.  It might be very worrisome as well
>> as it might
>>> be nothing new but a change in terms.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The C-V2X is challenging with WiFi V2X, it depends on what is
>>> mostly used by countries, but the WiFi is probably will win.
>>> 
>>> AB
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>