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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 18 December 2019 10:06 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 4B522120024 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 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] 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 oQm5wY31gTDW for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:06:39 -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 810641200F1 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 02:06:39 -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 xBIA6ZsS010863; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:06:35 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5031F206B82; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:06:35 +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 3F8972032F3; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBIA6ZbG028175; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:06:35 +0100
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgSMOkcnJp?= <Jerome.Haerri@eurecom.fr>, "'Abdussalam Baryun'" <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Cc: "'its'" <its@ietf.org>
References: <EED81985-1D4C-41B2-8CCA-A46B96390A18@vigilsec.com> <1c70cda6-050b-e018-6786-abd99281b6bb@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-opM3O5U7-C8v+KYTX6-ruQzajRZgDWzzZtXRnJt575Q@mail.gmail.com> <ad3ccd6c-cd99-c47a-d0df-bfb94b5ab40f@gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_wwa91-5UWeqxhJy=nMBp8kwu4ZvfxsAojZCY9DG8jSA@mail.gmail.com> <92850021-914f-ab6a-f8d2-ab793179fa1b@gmail.com> <00d601d5b4ee$01cc9ae0$0565d0a0$@eurecom.fr>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:06:35 +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: <00d601d5b4ee$01cc9ae0$0565d0a0$@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/TGIlLzz2DZH1ZzHdVQYqEyy4KtI>
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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:06:43 -0000


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 <haerri@eurecom.fr> 
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:09 To: 'Alexandre Petrescu'
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>om>; 'Abdussalam Baryun'
> <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Cc: 'its' <its@ietf.org> 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 <its-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf
> Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 15:45 To:
> Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Cc: its
> <its@ietf.org> 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 
>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> 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 
>>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>> 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 
> its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>