Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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.

I think FCC wants much parts of the 5.9GHz for WLAN (not OCB) and other 
parts for C-V2X.

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.

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.

Alex
> 
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:58 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[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
> 
>