Re: [ipwave] J3161

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 15/10/2021 à 21:54, Dick Roy a écrit :
> [...] and that many restrictions were going to be necessary (aka “a
> profile”) which is what you will find in J3161 (which is still in
> ballot by the way!) and similar documents in the EU and elsewhere!

Does J3161 WIP mention the word 'IP' or 'IPv6' at times?

Alex

> NB: THERE ARE NO PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE C-V2X standards today to which
> vendors of equipment can claim conformance other than the 3GPP ones
> which are not enough, and plugtests are being conducted!  How broken
> is that!  I am nearly 100% certain that there is not a single vendor
> of C-V2X equipment that has implemented the requirement that their
> units cease transmission altogether when the unit’s estimate of time
> is off by more than 391ns (yes NANOSECONDS!!) from GNSS (aka UTC)
> time. When GPS lock is lost, all hell breaks loose as was discovered
> recently.  And naturally, there are kludges for that too!  You might
> find it very interesting to do a patent search (applications and
> publications) with the assignee “Qualcomm, Incorporated”.  The
> results speak volumes!
> 
> Again, this is all well-known and publically available.  What is not
>  well-known or publically is how poorly C-V2X functions in the real 
> world, and that information will NEVER see the light of day if all
> goes according to Qualcomm’s plan.  Ask any of the “vendors” of C-V2X
>  equipment if they are allowed to tell you anything about how well it
>  works and you will hear crickets, loud and clear. This whole debacle
> is a train wreck of massive proportions just around the next bend.
> 
> RR
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021
> 8:43 AM To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [ipwave]
> Feedback from ITU-R CITS about IP and cellular for vehicular
> networks
> 
> Le 05/10/2021 à 17:24, Dick Roy a écrit :
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: its [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 
>> On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021
>> 5:29
> 
>> AM To: [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [ipwave]
> 
>> Feedback from ITU-R CITS about IP and cellular for vehicular
> 
>> networks
> 
>> 
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> 
> 
>>> There might be other problems with IP on C-V2X on a car-to-car
> 
>> 
> 
>>> without base station scenario.
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> */[RR] Like there being NO layer-2 addressing in C-V2X  …  ONLy
> 
>> 
> 
>>> broadcasts! Just imagine how efficient that will be! /*
> 
>> 
> 
>> It sounds as if one has read a specification of C-V2X and has seen
> 
>> the
> 
>> 
> 
>> C-V2X headers and in these headers there are no addresses.
> 
>> 
> 
>> */[RR] yup! C-V2X can ONLy be used for broadcasts in the US! When
> 
>> one is being manipulated for corporate aggrandizement, it is wise
>> to
> 
>> do one’s homework. Yes it involves effort, effort which many  are
> 
>> unfortunately not willing to expend so I guess they’ll just  have
>> to
> 
>> live with the consequences, consequences which I am positive they
> 
>> are going to deeply regret having to suffer through. They can not
> 
>> say that they haven’t been warned however, so it’s  really their
>> own
> 
>> fault. /*
> 
>> 
> 
>> Can I see that?
> 
>> 
> 
>> */[RR] Sure can.  Just read the 3GPP LTE Rel14 (cf. mode 3 and
>> mode
> 
>> 4 PC5 sidelink) specs and J3161 (which is not available to you yet
> 
>> of course) and you will see there are NO layer-2 addresses.  There
>> is
> 
>> a 24-bit control field in the MAC header which is useless without
>> an
> 
>> eNodeB so there have been attempts to use it for other purposes.
> 
>> The Chinese use it to encode a hash of the ITS-AID (brilliant!)
>> and
> 
>> the US just populates it with random numbers (which have to tumble
> 
>> with all the other immutable fields for pseudonymity!). It gets
>> even
> 
>> better … ^(((((/*
> 
>> 
> 
>> *//*
> 
> Richard,
> 
> You are helping in a sense, but still it is confusing.
> 
> Let me be straight.
> 
> If you think that C-V2X is an invisible document to me (J3161) then
> of
> 
> course I can not even dream to work on it.  Note that it might be
> that I
> 
> might ask a kind soul to show it to me for standardisation purposes;
> if
> 
> the request is strong enough it might even become public officially.
> 
> But that is speculation.
> 
> Still, if C-V2X J3161 is invisible then one can try to tell back to
> ITU
> 
> that their strong invitation to develop a document for IPv6 for
> C-V2X
> 
> can not succeed because of that J3161 unavailability.  And we end
> there.
> 
> If on another hand you think that 3GPP LTE Rel14 cf. mode 3 and mode
> 4
> 
> can be equivalent to 'C-V2X' then we can work on that, because the
> specs
> 
> are available openly.  Here we might struggle with other issues
> 
> that I will raise when necessary, but it might be workable.
> 
> So, the basic question is this: what is 'C-V2X'?  Is 'C-V2X' a set
> of
> 
> 3GPP documents or a set of SAE documents?
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
> 
>> */RR /*
> 
>> 
> 
>> Alex
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> Alex
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> Le 04/10/2021 à 11:52, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> Hi, IPWAVErs,
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> I gave a brief presentation of the IPWAVE WG, RFC8691 and
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> Vehicular
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> Networks I-D to the ITU CITS 'Collaboration on ITS
>>>> Standards',
> 
>>>> in
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> September, 2021.
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> This is the feedback I received:
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> Bring the cellular kind of work, like  IP-over-cellular,  in
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> IPWAVE WG.  This request is so  because:
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> - because China efforts on cellular and because
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> USA FCC  regulation changes at 5.9GHz to include
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> C-V2X  ('C'==cellular).
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> - because at ETSI it  is thought that it is easy
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> to do IP  over any access layer, be it 802.11-OCB
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> or a  cellular kind of link layer.
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> What do you think?
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> Alex
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> its mailing list
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> [e-mail]
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> its mailing list
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> [e-mail]
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
> 
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
> 
>> 
> 
>> its mailing list
> 
>> 
> 
>> [e-mail]
> 
>> 
> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
>> 
>