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, 8 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>om>; '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
>