[ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re: FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves)

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 12:04 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 1E90E120074 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:04:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.621 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, T_FREEMAIL_DOC_PDF=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 vf0yIk4uWr8E for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:04:36 -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 96B4E120024 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 04:04:35 -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 xBKC4Wqw010690 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:04:33 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E7172204957 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:04:32 +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 4A80120494D for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:04:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.44] ([10.11.240.44]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBKC4Ja6014284 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:04:19 +0100
To: 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> <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:04:19 +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: <47f48fca-07b9-5657-4cb5-54cc5d63d2e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------9807FF513740733313E30EF9"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/gOs22HTIm6ulqw4opmYPG8ibAF4>
Subject: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re: 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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:04:41 -0000

Hi, IPWAVErs,

I am interested in commenting on the FCC plan for 5.9GHz band, in 
particular with respect to the channel(s) on which to use 
IPv6-over-802.11-OCB.

There seems to be a window of opportunity of 30 days from publishing 
date of Dec. 17th.

Is anybody planning to comment?  Is someone part of a group that would 
like to comment?

(attached the FCC notice)

Alex

Le 18/12/2019 à 11:06, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> 
> 
> 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>; '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
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its