From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout10.eigbox.net (bosmailout10.eigbox.net [66.96.189.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69C23B29D for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan09.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.9]) by bosmailout10.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rj8c0-0002Au-10 for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 21:08:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zRT5VdEQMuD6HMIgqY2lkIF07YI1Qlg2H0pXQOFK1mc=; b=uST7XNtjM9gGfPk4xeZhWGdZ5x 73B7TFRAQzVMS6qmz2ufDxG7U98wTKGjpct4+f4ORuSP0MxP2AljpjwyZezPNmUF83EjCd9zsaDRZ u5TYFPqY5pDDbGWm8/TLKnT6DyvjTo4G7483dFHAw5pMQ/8Yv+wKUYNydWviY/3L4WheP0DSxLYEx JY7WdX31sPWP1jTIQEEJfUQD9RMLybPOYrv6YXEDobx0X1zY5e+MIb/fiIAu/7ANW9w5NQMVjbJ7S QXkprGmFyosScnTKRNdP4i5gENscV9TF7+PiOqXsewlIUH445EEW+q24M9KOZYMq258/swglvQO0S M0J//TLw==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan09.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rj8bx-0007By-P8 for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 21:08:25 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp12.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.12]) by bosimpout13 with id wq8N2B0020FdZ9W01q8RKA; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 21:08:25 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=Q6tJH7+a c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=wx0GOVZTcu8EuaXTIXj3VQ==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=K6JAEmCyrfEA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=uc0ImfAGAAAA:8 a=1XWaLZrsAAAA:8 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=usUTcz4nAAAA:8 a=W6MEE51cAAAA:8 a=T7o4Huk7FDtd4CewjCUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=YEcj5DFpwHMA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=PbNJeUbFfdJj4kmDQUIA:9 a=2msSN8QFIl5hgmgz:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=rRYRIYwG23mg9k7Gdpk5:22 a=NWVoK91CQySWRX1oVYDe:22 a=HikIa6KlOV_IrpuQr91D:22 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=MqnEBYhnR1GEXjMu-uAJ:22 a=LhyfwtUod607kEnlAdyM:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:58769 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp12.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1rj8bt-00044L-Os; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 21:08:22 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: "'Vint Cerf'" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?pects_heard_this_time!'?= References: <6BE25389766648E5AA898A86F4937D34@SRA6> <03cb3495-5f60-4a13-ae75-60bb92a5b867@rjmcmahon.com> <6DB25029C84949F28089FFF85B2F88B7@SRA6> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:08:18 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C2_01DA724C.C5D5B910" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Adpyde6PtRSH+tjmTBGEYe3/toj7bwAFOHGA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading) X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:08:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01DA724C.C5D5B910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable V: That=92s a fascinating question on so many fronts. The number of life-saving applications enabled by this simple scheme I will describe = below is huge (google CVRIA and you=92ll get to https://www.standards.its.dot.gov/developmentactivities/cvreference) = where you can spend hours or days! =20 =20 That said, V2X (which involves V to pedestrians, roadsides, personal = devices (aka iPhones) and more) communications is absolutely dominated (by many orders of magnitude) by the following very simple scheme. Here-I-am messages (aka BSMs or Basic Safety Messages and their lookalikes) are broadcast several times every second which sends to all receivers that = are in comm range, estimates of the sender=92s kinematic state and a lot of = other stuff I don=92t have time to go into. So the direct answer to your = question is: vehicles rarely talk directly to other vehicles, and when that = becomes necessary the vehicles know where each other are! That, however, is not really as relevant as knowing the layer-2 (aka MAC) addresses which also happen to be in every stream (aka every DSRC packet transmitted OTA). = And yes, local area networks in cars and roadside units can be involved in = which case layer-3 addresses (aka IP addresses) are also used. Naturally = this technology can also be used as the first/last hop in a connecting to the internet for hundreds of other purposes, or other access technologies (google ITS station or simply think iPhone) can be and are used! FTR, = the ITS station predates the iPhone! :-):-):-)=20 =20 There are hundreds of international standards detailing exactly how this = is done, and until a year ago, there were products on the roads in the US = DOING IT! Interestingly, the EU didn=92t fall for the con so they actually = have millions of units in the field and more getting deployed every day. Here = in the US, we just seem to want to get hosed by a big corporation while the government sits by and watches 50,000 people a year die on our roads needlessly. Stunningly, we (the US) are currently far behind the state = of play in this space that we were in over a decade ago =85 yes more than = 10 years and billions of dollars have been wasted. Didn=92t have to be = this way, but here we are. People needlessly die every day on the roads and that corporation=92s market cap continues to climb! We (the US) are currently experiencing another CDMA con job (aka square peg in a round hole with = lots of IPR) and no one seems to know or care. What is wrong with this picture???? :-(:-( =20 Again, if you (the reader) have any interest in trying to =93right this = ship=94, feel free to contact me! =20 RR =20 _____ =20 From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com]=20 Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 3:03 PM To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Network Neutrality is back! Let=B4s make the technical aspects heard this time! Cc: Robert McMahon Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network = slicing and net neutrality (LightReading) =20 How do you know where the vehicle is that you are talking to? =20 V =20 On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 17:26 Dick Roy via Nnagain wrote: =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]=20 Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 12:58 PM To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network = slicing and net neutrality (LightReading) =20 =20 What is DSRC? [RR] Don=92t get me started! :-(:-(:-( Very simply it is the optimal technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet today =85 aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz =85 think 802.11a) that has been shelved = here in the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an 8-year old technology that does not work and on which a single company = has a majority of the IPR. Surprise, surprise, that company has invested = 100=92s of millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately it=92s = working. DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and would have been = on the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives, but = that wasn=92t good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x in royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their technology. When the general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands the = impact, they should be and will be outraged! Think =93DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing=94 =85 it=92s exactly the same thing =85 just the names have = been changed. Watch it if you haven=92t already! Contact me if you want more details! I am looking for any and ALL help = I can get to expose this fraud. Cheers, RR=20 =20 DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and = other road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure. DSRC is based on WiFi technology https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=3DWhat%20is%20= DSRC% 3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure. On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain wrote: =20 =20 =85 =20 As expected this technique is designed to allow exactly what NN was = designed to prohibit (treating packets differentially in the internet based on economic considerations*)... this is IMHO why instead of calling a spade = a spade mobile carriers avoid describing this in a useful way, as it is exactly about prioritisation... IMHO that will back fire, and a better avenue would be to be open about what it enables and propose a method to restrict the potential issues. E.g. (I am making this up on the fly, so = it will likely not hold up to any degree of scrutiny) by self limiting to = never commit more than X% of a cell's capacity to slicing, IFF the cell is = used for normal end user service at all. So admit that there is some = trade-off here, limit the fall-out, and then describe why we as a society should embrace that trade-off. I am a bit sceptical about the whole car 2 car communication thing (that is cars talk to cars, not people n cars talk = to people on cars ;) ), but if a Carrier believes there is value in that = for e.g. accident avoidance, then tell how this requires the stricter = network guarantees that (only?) slicing can deliver. [RR] V2X communications for saving lives will NEVER go through ANY = carrier=92s network in spite of what you hear. There is simply no way anyone is = going to pay to have BSMs broadcast 10 times a second to prevent accidents, = and NO CARRIER is going to give that capacity away for free, even if they had enough to carry the traffic, which they do not by many orders of magnitude!!! More importantly, the information being exchanged does NOT require a network to get where it needs to go! The 5G hype you hear = from various carriers and equipment suppliers related to V2X communications = is all powerpoint BS (to make shareholders happy). And there is a ton of it = out there! :-):-) =20 RR =20 =20 _____ =20 =20 =20 Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain ------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01DA724C.C5D5B910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

V: That’s a fascinating = question on so many fronts. =A0The number of life-saving applications enabled by = this simple scheme I will describe below is huge (google CVRIA and you’ll get = to https://www.standards.its.dot.gov/developmentactivities/cvreference) where you can spend hours or days! =A0

 

That said, V2X (which involves V to = pedestrians, roadsides, personal devices (aka iPhones) and more) communications is absolutely dominated (by many orders of magnitude) by the following very = simple scheme. =A0Here-I-am messages (aka BSMs or Basic Safety Messages and = their lookalikes) are broadcast several times every second which sends to all receivers that are in comm range, estimates of the sender’s = kinematic state and a lot of other stuff I don’t have time to go into. =A0So = the direct answer to your question is: vehicles rarely talk directly to = other vehicles, and when that becomes necessary the vehicles know where each = other are! =A0That, however, is not really as relevant as knowing the layer-2 = (aka MAC) addresses which also happen to be in every stream (aka every DSRC packet transmitted OTA). =A0And yes, local area networks in cars and roadside = units can be involved in which case layer-3 addresses (aka IP addresses) are also = used. =A0=A0Naturally this technology can also be used as the first/last hop in a connecting = to the internet for hundreds of other purposes, or other access technologies = (google ITS station or simply think iPhone) can be and are used! =A0FTR, the ITS = station predates the iPhone! JJJ

 

There are hundreds of international = standards detailing exactly how this is done, and until a year ago, there were = products on the roads in the US DOING IT! Interestingly, the EU didn’t fall for the con so they = actually have millions of units in the field and more getting deployed every day. = Here in the US, we just seem to want to get hosed by a big corporation while the = government sits by and watches 50,000 people a year die on our roads needlessly. = Stunningly, we (the US) are currently far behind the state of play in this space = that we were in over a decade ago … yes more than 10 years and billions of dollars have been wasted. =A0Didn’t have to be this way, but here = we are. =A0People needlessly die every day on the roads and that corporation’s = market cap continues to climb! We (the US) are currently experiencing another CDMA con job (aka square peg in a = round hole with lots of IPR) and no one seems to know or care. What is wrong with = this picture???? LL

 

Again, if you (the reader) have any interest in trying to “right this ship”, feel free to = contact me!

 

RR

 

From: Vint = Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com] =
Sent: Saturday, March 9, = 2024 3:03 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Network Neutrality is back! Let=B4s make the technical aspects heard = this time!
Cc: Robert McMahon
Subject: Re: [NNagain] = Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality = (LightReading)

 

How do you know where the vehicle is that you are talking = to?

 

V

 

 

 

From: Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 9, = 2024 12:58 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain
Subject: Re: [NNagain] = Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality = (LightReading)

 

 

What = is DSRC?

[RR] Don’t get me = started! LLL  Very simply it is the optimal = technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet today = … aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz … think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in the = US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an 8-year = old technology that does not work and on which a single company has a = majority of the IPR.  Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100’s = of millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately = it’s working.  DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and = would have been on the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives, = but that wasn’t good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x in royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their = technology.  When the general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands = the impact, they should be and will be outraged! Think “DOWNFALL: The = Case Against Boeing”  … it’s exactly the same thing = … just the names have been changed.  Watch it if you haven’t = already!

Contact me if you want = more details!  I am looking for any and ALL help I can get to expose this = fraud.

Cheers,<= /b>

RR =

 

DSRC = (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication technology that = enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other road users directly, = without involving cellular or other infrastructure. DSRC is based on WiFi = technology

On = Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

 

…

 

As expected this = technique is designed to allow exactly what NN was designed to prohibit (treating = packets differentially in the internet based on economic considerations*)... = this is IMHO why instead of calling a spade a spade mobile carriers avoid = describing this in a useful way, as it is exactly about prioritisation... IMHO that = will back fire, and a better avenue would be to be open about what it enables = and propose a method to restrict the potential issues. E.g. (I am making = this up on the fly, so it will likely not hold up to any degree of scrutiny) by = self limiting to never commit more than X% of a cell's capacity to slicing, = IFF the cell is used for normal end user service at all. So admit that there is = some trade-off here, limit the fall-out, and then describe why we as a = society should embrace that trade-off. I am a = bit sceptical about the whole car 2 car communication thing (that is cars = talk to cars, not people n cars talk to people on cars ;) ), but if a Carrier = believes there is value in that for e.g. accident avoidance, then tell how this = requires the stricter network guarantees that (only?) slicing can = deliver.

[RR] V2X communications = for saving lives will NEVER go through ANY carrier’s network in spite = of what you hear.  There is simply no way anyone is going to pay to have = BSMs broadcast 10 times a second to prevent accidents, and NO CARRIER is = going to give that capacity away for free, even if they had enough to carry the = traffic, which they do not by many orders of magnitude!!!  More importantly, = the information being exchanged does NOT require a network to get where it = needs to go!  The 5G hype you hear from various carriers and equipment = suppliers related to V2X communications is all powerpoint BS (to make shareholders happy). And there is a ton of it out there! = JJ

 =

RR

 
 






 
 





Nnagain mailing list




Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net




https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain=

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain=

------=_NextPart_000_01C2_01DA724C.C5D5B910--