Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status

["Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,
Thanks for your opinion and status of 5G.

I think IPWAVE needs to consider IPv6 over C-V2X based on 5G because
C-V2X has higher bandwidth than 802.11-OCB based on WAVE.

My SKKU group is studying how to efficiently support IPv6 over C-V2X in
vehicular networks.
This will be a possible WG item for IPWAVE WG.

Thanks.

Paul

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:50 PM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Le 25/09/2019 à 16:13, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> > Hi
> >
> > Le 20/09/2019 à 04:23, Sharon Barkai and Dick Roy ([RR]) wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> */[RR] This is a really long story, however, C-V2X is being specified
> >>> as an alternative to US DSRC, not as a cellular access technology
> >>> since that’s already available and deployed.  The reason LTE Release
> >>> 14 and successors is being specified has nothing to do with its
> >>> lineage as a child of cellular; in fact, it is provably a square peg
> >>> being forced into a round hole and we all know how that generally
> >>> ends up, and that’s a story for another day/*
> >>>
> >>> The 5G evolution is supposed to match the latency of peer to peer WiFi.
> >
> > When that matches, WiFi will have leaped forward to below
> > 100micro-second latency.  This was so (cellular catching up with a
> > leaping forward WiFi latency) since the invention of WiFi 20 years ago,
> > and it wont change.  It's a constant of evolution.
> >
> >>> */[RR] 5G is nothing but hype at the moment
> >
> > Here is a more precise status, according to my personal understanding.
> > This obviously differs from many people's understandings, who may be
> > more knowledgeable.
> >
> > In France, frequencies for use in 5G radio would start to be discussed
> > now in September, with allocation towards December.  The allocation is
> > similar, but not quite like, the process that was used for 3G: auction
> > sales.  The differences from 3G are: (1) it is not expected to generate
> > huge revenues for gov't and (2) some sales, like of the 3.5GHz band,
> > would actually be a re-allocation from what was previously allocated to
> > wimax operators  (e.g. SDH in France) and to City Authority (like Mayor)
> > in places where there was no operator).
> >
> > Obviously, until these frequencies are allocated one cant really talk
> > about 5G deployment on public roads, even if...
> >
> > If one wants to talk about 5G like when talking a higher bandwidth and
> > lower latency than 4G, then one assumes 4G to be 50ms latency and
> > 2Mbit/s bandwidth.  One can talk then about 25ms latency and 10Mbit/s,
> > and claim that to be 5G.  But it is not 5G.  It is just another Class or
> > Category of 4G.  In theory, one can still be 4G and run at 1Gbps (e.g.
> > Category 16).
> >
> > Also, one can talk about a higher bandwidth outdoors network by running
> > 802.11 WiFi on 5.4 GHz and, why not, at 5.9GHz.
> >
> > Colleagues call these 'acrobatics 5G'.
> >
> > This is when one wonders: what is 5G anyways? with its associated
> > question: why was the predecessor of 5G called 'LTE' (Long Term
> > Evolution), or where is the long term?  Is 5G LTE?
> >
> > With respect to other countries, I heard two recent announcements, about
> > Spain and Germany.
> >
> > They both claim 5G is deployed in the respective areas.
> >
> > This claims 15 cities in Spain on June 15th, by Vodafone:
> >
> https://www.xataka.com/empresas-y-economia/red-5g-comercial-vodafone-espana-tiene-fecha-lanzamiento-15-ciudades-15-junio
> >
> >
> > This claims 5 cities in Germany, but it does not say when, by Deutsche
> > Telekom:
> > https://www.telekom.de/start/netzausbau?wt_mc=alias_1070_netzausbau
> >
> > As hardware for end users, this is the situation now:
> > - there is no 5G smartphone for sale in France.  I guess it is the same
> >    in more countries.  If it were different, it would be an isolation
> >    easily spot by many.
> > - iphone 11 just launched features 'Gigabit-class LTE' and 'LTE
> >    Advanced' but no '5G'.  They run on 'LTE Bands' which are your typical
> >    frequencies below 5GHz for cellular communications, but nowhere like a
> >    26GHz of 5G.  No such band is called a '5G band'.
>
> Further details after searches of public documents:
>
> iphone 11 pro understands a 5G frequency band:
>
> it is specified to understand several frequency bands, among which also
> TD-LTE Band number 42, which is 3400MHz - 3600MHz.  This band is a 5G
> band.  Part of this band (3490MHz - 3600MHz) is being considered for
> allocation by regulator ARCEP.  It has not yet been allocated, but under
> discussion.
>
> ARCEP considers to also allocate Band 43 at 3600MHz - 3800MHz, for 5G.
> But this band is not covered by iphone 11 specs.
>
> ARCEP is silent about the range 3400MHz-3490MHz.  I suspect there might
> be some errors here.
>
> iphone 11 pro also understands TD-LTE Band 46 at 5150 MHz - 5925 MHz,
> which covers WiFi 5.4GHz and 802.11-OCB at 5.9GHz.  I suspect there
> would be some clashes here between deployed Road-Side Units and iphones.
>
> For highways and roads requirements, ARCEP seems to plan to require the
> licensee to cover them by December 2025.  And the required bandwidth is
> between 50mbit/s to 100Mbit/s and 10ms latency.  These figures are
> obviously little incitative, because 2025 is very late, 50mbit/s is what
> 4G already does and 10ms is much higher than 1ms 802.11-OCB today.
>
> On another hand, ARCEP requires the 5G licensee to support IPv6,
> starting end of 2020. (in French: "Le  titulaire  est  tenu  de  rendre
> son  réseau  mobile  compatible  avec  le  protocole  de  routage  IPv6
> à compter du 31décembre2020.").  This means that by that time, if IPv6
> under its form IPv6-over-OCB does not see a huge deployment compared to
> just 802.11-OCB WSMP, it might be that IPv6-over-5G on routes would be
> more likely.  Which may raise a question of the potential usefulness of
> a spec IPv6-over-5G.
>
> So, this is to say that where I live it is not very clear how these
> things will unfold.
>
> Alex
>
>
> > - one can buy off the shelf modules, like miniPCIe (I have a list) that
> >    go very high in terms of bandwidth, well beyond what normal 4G would
> >    do, but couldnt really use them at that high parameters.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >>> and simply matching the latency would be no reason to switch from
> >>> DSRC to another access technology for V2V safety, though nothing
> >>> prevents the addition of 5G NR access technologies in ITS stations
> >>> (aka OBUs) for other uses. /*
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>


-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: [phone]
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
<http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>