[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
- [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicl… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Jérôme Härri
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Jérôme Härri
- Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Ve… Alexandre Petrescu
- [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re: FCC… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan (was: Re:… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan fygsimon@gmail.com
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan Chris Shen
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan, and a no… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan, and a no… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan - related… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan - related… Alexandre Petrescu