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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:04 PM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Thanks Alex, yes I agree, and I am interested to join if this group wants
to comment through US_ISOC.


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

Yes, Agree

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

I think this IPWAVE group can comment and submit to ISOCs of US so they
comment as well,


>
> (attached the FCC notice)
>
> thanks

AB



> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:09 To: 'Alexandre Petrescu'
> >> <[e-mail]>; 'Abdussalam Baryun'
> >> <[e-mail]> Cc: 'its' <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf
> >> Of Alexandre Petrescu Sent: Tuesday, 17 December 2019 15:45 To:
> >> Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> Cc: its
> >> <[e-mail]> 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
> >>> <[e-mail]
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
> >>>> <[e-mail]
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> 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
> >> [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
>