| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi John,
Indeed the “second” 20MHz format is straight forward. Yossi Shaul is concluding simulations, and we hope to share the results soon.
Regards, Onn.
From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbd -- Enhancements for Next Generation V2X.Task Group ** <STDS-802-11-TGBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John Kenney
Hi Rui and All:
Rui, thanks for starting this discussion.
I commented on the 0.3 draft to make 20 MHz optional. I was thinking particularly about the EU situation, which Friedbert has now confirmed. That alone seems like a good reason for 20 MHz to be optional.
As the US spectrum situation is developing, DSRC/NGV may only have access to one 10 MHz channel (sadly). Therefore, we might not be able to use the 20 MHz capability here either if the FCC proposal is formalized. We may find more ITS spectrum in the future. The 4.9 GHz band has been mentioned. But, that is speculative and far from likely.
If the FCC limits the ITS band to 30 MHz (5895-5925 MHz), there is also the possibility of DSRC/NGV operating as unlicensed in the U-NII-4 band, or in other U-NII bands, for less critical services. This has not been discussed much. I can think of at least two paradigms for that: A) DSRC/NGV continues to use 10 MHz as the base channel width. In this case the 20 MHz NGV capability could be used as well. This would be attractive for existing DSRC implementations, e.g. New York and Tampa pilot sites and other large deployments. But, it's not clear if they will want to given the lack of interference protection. Under this paradigm, 10 MHz DSRC, 10 MHz NGV, and 20 MHz NGV would coexist well with each other, but not with 20/40/80/160 MHz Wi-Fi should such devices be deployed in proximity. B) DSRC/NGV moves to a 20 MHz base channel width in the 5850-5895 MHz U-NII-4 band. DSRC already has a 20 MHz version, which chip sets support but is not deployed (to my knowledge). 20 MHz DSRC would coexist well with 20/40/80/160 MHz Wi-Fi due to a common legacy preamble. Note that the 20 MHz version of NGV we are developing would not coexist well with 20/40/80/160 MHz Wi-Fi, because it uses two 10 MHz premables instead of a 20 MHz preamble. If this paradigm is attractive, TGbd should consider specifying a second 20 MHz format, using a 20 MHz preamble that would coexist with 20 MHz DSRC and 20/40/80/160 MHz Wi-Fi, and that would incorporate PHY/MAC enhancements compared to DSRC. I believe Onn Haran has previously mentioned this possibility. It is important to realize that this second 20 MHz format would not be intended to coexist with the first 20 MHz format or with 10 MHz DSRC/NGV. It would be more straight forward, I expect, than the first 20 MHz format.
Best Regards, John
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:12 PM Dick Roy <dickroy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-- John Kenney Director and Sr. Principal Researcher Toyota InfoTech Labs 465 Bernardo Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBD list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBD&A=1 |