[ipwave] example of problematic PHY setup

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 12 April 2019 13:30 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 987EB120375 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.227
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.404, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 oZP7ZId_Cc0O for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 E14391201DA for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 06:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3CDUjCJ041573 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:30:45 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DA4F204E6A for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:30:45 +0200 (CEST)
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 0C565204A5E for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:30:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3CDUhWt003217 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:30:43 +0200
To: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7b7ae1b8-782b-688a-d31c-e554dad41cce@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:30:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5974403810B8E6EE5CFE1550"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/Yl_IXs9pPLTtm3k9PXopVaQOAZo>
Subject: [ipwave] example of problematic PHY setup
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:30:51 -0000

In my explanations I often say that PHY and MAC must be setup properly 
in order for IP to work on them.  It's good to use the right channels, 
to understand the propagation models, etc.

Here is one example of problematic PHY deployment from the world of 
lidars (it's a PHY, but it's not message exchange nature; it's more 
bouncing signal nature).

This recent deployment of lidar on pole is probably targetting sharing 
its data with cars on 5G.  The lidar is apparently a Quanergy M8 model.  
I strongly suppose it does not see right under it.  It may work on a 
distance, but not immediately below it.  It is a problem.

It is the same kind of problematic issues that are also done with many 
OCB IP-RSU deployments: their PHY covers in places they should not (e.g. 
outside the road) and their coverage on the road is lesser.

These kinds of problems of PHY deployment lead to wrong things happening 
at PHY, at MAC and implicitely at IP layer.

But it is not because of IP, nor because of ND.

One cant fix these problems by improving ND.  Maybe a little ND timer 
tweaking could help something, but much less than what an angled lidar, 
or focused MIMO OCB antennas could solve.



Alex