Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Dirk,

Thank you for the pointer to srsLTE open source software.  It seems
useful.  It is very tempting to download and build a 5G base station on
cheap off the shelf hardware, at 3.5GHz.  It appears easy to implement
V2X messaging on it.

With respect to the 5G deployment status: today I learned that in the
area where I work (Paris-Saclay plateau) the 5G experimental deployment
of a network equipment manufacturer to connect for cars is again
delayed, after mid 2020, even if the necessary temporary  licenses for
experimental use of 5G at 3.5GHz is allocated by the regulator.  I dont
know the reasons.

Alex

Le 26/09/2019 à 17:19, [e-mail] a écrit :
> Hi Paul and Alex,
> 
> I can only agree that C-V2X or PC5 (as 3GPPs V2V link is called) is very 
> important here.
> 
> Implementations also support IPv6 (see e.g. 
> https://site.eettaiwan.com/events/iovev2019/dl/03_Keysight.pdf) and a 
> planned SDR implementation based on Open source SDR LTE software suite 
> from Software Radio Systems (SRS) also allow for IPv6 communication 
> since some time (https://github.com/srsLTE/srsLTE/blob/master/CHANGELOG).
> 
> We hopefully will be able until end of this year to report some 
> measurements …
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Dirk
> 
> *From:*its <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 26. September 2019 16:47
> *To:* Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status
> 
> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     its mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php 
> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>