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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 17 December 2019 13:54 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 D2E2B12080E for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:54:15 -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 DhVgP1iP8wIj for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:54:13 -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 48BD01200B8 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:54:13 -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 xBHDsBNK002266; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:54:11 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 174F220662C; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:54:11 +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 07C83201016; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:54:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.20] ([10.11.240.20]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id xBHDsAvL008815; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:54:10 +0100
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Cc: its <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>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ad3ccd6c-cd99-c47a-d0df-bfb94b5ab40f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:54:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-opM3O5U7-C8v+KYTX6-ruQzajRZgDWzzZtXRnJt575Q@mail.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/wp99ljHHbKisyqXNJtaNZGKfyiY>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] FCC Moves Plan Forward to Chop Up Vehicle Safety Airwaves
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: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:54:16 -0000


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 
> <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
> 
>