Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 08 January 2020 15:13 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 20EBE120834 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:13:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 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, 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 xxZevVs5qQXT for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:13:07 -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 01F18120857 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:13:06 -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 008FD4ic008989 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:13:04 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7ADE220559A for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:13:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A292055C6 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:13:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 008FD4K0022000 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:13:04 +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> <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7664b128-91b7-8fef-1e13-b681b45b1958@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 16:13:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b9ea5f34-0129-614b-d644-0ab95437f6ac@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/ntIQdmNs_U_N5CTG88i_g9nCBGk>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Commenting on the FCC plan
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: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:13:18 -0000
For information and update, With Abdussalam we discussed in private: - potential implication of an ISOC representative in making a comment - the URL to file the comment is https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings - the potential comment is "what is the channel on which to use IPv6 (RFC8691 now)?" Because the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain the word IPv6; and because often in the past FCC was not clear about allowing IPv6 on the 'control' channel 5895-5905MHz; this is potentially the only channel allowed for 802.11-OCB (aka DSRC) in the future - the rest of 5.9GHz channels would go to 802.11ax and to C-V2X. - the deadline for filing comments is January 15th (30 days from Dec. 17th). I am looking for interest in this. Alex Le 20/12/2019 à 13:04, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit : > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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