Re: [ipwave] PC5 and 5.9GHz?

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/04/2019 à 15:57, Jerome Haerri a écrit :
> Dear All,
> 
> just minor modification to avoid misunderstanding:
>> the EU is quite clear: there should not be technology ban on the 
>> ITS-G5 SPECTRUM

I dont understand ban.

My question is simple: is PC5 at 5.9GHZ?

Alex

> 
> Sorry about the confusion,
> 
> Jérôme
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
> 
> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 15:50, Jerome Haerri <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Alex, Dirk,
>>
>> the EU is quite clear: there should not be technology ban on the 
>> ITS-G5 as long as it is for ’safety-related’ applications for road ITS.
>> This being said, for another technology to use ITS-G5 spectrum, it 
>> must coexist with existing technologies, and be commercially available.
>>
>> For now, the EU commission in its DA estimates that these two points 
>> are not there yet, thus recommened to use ITS-G5 on the CCH, only (the 
>> EU still pushes for both technologies in other channels for Day 2 
>> applications..no regulation yet)
>>
>> Indeed as of today, LTE-V2X and ITS-G5 cannot coexist at PHY and MAC 
>> layer..
>>
>> Both ETSI ERM and C2C are working on PHY and MAC extentions for 
>> coexistence.
>>
>> Yet, indeed even at L3, we should envision ways to differentiate 
>> between technologies. Let’s see once PHY/MAC coexistence will be 
>> completed...
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Jérôme
>>
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>>> Le 18 avr. 2019 à 15:17, Alexandre Petrescu 
>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 17/04/2019 à 14:32, [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>> I strongly agree with you that we need a precise definition on what 
>>>> we mean with cellular V2X (often denoted as C-V2X in general – so 
>>>> covering LTE and 5G/NR) – especially since – as you correctly 
>>>> pointed out - 3GPP has none such official definition as LTE-V2X or 
>>>> NR-V2X .
>>>> However when defining LTE-V2X we should be aware that there are two 
>>>> different modes of operation for V2X communication in 3GPP cellular 
>>>> systems (as also described in Annex A.5 of PS document 
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-08).
>>>> E.g. according to 3GPP TR 21.914 giving a Release 14 (i.e. LTE) 
>>>> Description and Summary of Rel-14 Work Items, but similarly also for 
>>>> 5G/NR or Rel. 15 and higher (here in still draft TR 21.915) the 
>>>> modes of operation are described as
>>>> -Direct V2X communication between UEs over a 3GPP sidelink (PC5 
>>>> interface)
>>>> -V2X communication over LTE-Uu interface (i.e. via base stations / eNBs)
>>>
>>> Dirk,
>>>
>>> A colleague in a group perform a study of latency comparison between 
>>> 802.11-OCB and LTE-Uu between cars.  It is simulation.  They found 
>>> numbers comparing the latency.
>>>
>>> On another hand,
>>>
>>> Do we know whether the use of the PC5 interface is allowed at 5.9GHz?
>>>
>>> That may have an impact on an IP-over-OCB thing:
>>> - if PC5 is allowed at 5.9GHz then the only way to make sure it 
>>> co-exists with OCB at same frequency is to use Traffic Class or Flow 
>>> Label field in IPv6 header.  That is a good work item.
>>>
>>> If that work item works, then one may need to map these QoS fields 
>>> into the QoS fields of the 802.11 header, fields required in the 
>>> IPv6-over-OCB document.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>> In addition there are 2 different modes for PC5/sidelink:
>>>> -in coverage of cellular system with LTE assistance
>>>> -out of coverage: ad-hoc mode w/o assistance … very similar to OCB.
>>>> So I would recommend to specify more exactly what we have in mind.
>>>> LTE-V2X: the transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over 
>>>> a cellular link such as 3GPP 4G – both via base station and directly 
>>>> between vehicles
>>>> Or more general:
>>>> C-V2X: the transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over a 
>>>> cellular link such as 3G, 4G and successors – both in infrastructure 
>>>> mode (via base station / Uu interface) and ad-hoc mode (direct link 
>>>> / sidelink interface) if available [since sidelink is only specified 
>>>> for 4G/5G]
>>>> Or one may even reflect differentiation between those modes in the 
>>>> acronym (which I would not recommend here being not in scope for 
>>>> this document)
>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Dirk
>>>> *From:*its <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On 
>>>> Behalf Of *Alexandre Petrescu
>>>> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 17. April 2019 13:18
>>>> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject:* [ipwave] LTE-V2X term in Problem Statement document
>>>> Hi IPWAVErs,
>>>> The IPWAVE Problem Statement document uses the term 'LTE-V2X' at one 
>>>> point. ("e.g., IEEE 802.11-OCB and LTE-V2X")
>>>> I would like to suggest to make a careful definition of the term 
>>>> 'LTE-V2X'.
>>>> One would expect the term 'LTE-V2X' to be defined precisely at 3GPP 
>>>> or similar.  But that is not the case.  The 3GPP document that is 
>>>> closest to this term is RP-161298, publicly available, defines the 
>>>> term 'LTE_V2X' (remark underscore '_', instead of dash '-').
>>>> I suggest the addition of the following term in the Problem 
>>>> Statement draft:
>>>> LTE-V2X: the transmission of ETSI CAM and DENM messages over IP over 
>>>> a cellular link such as 3G, 4G and successors.
>>>> Alex
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its