Subject: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:39:14 -0500

Hello all,

Almost about two years ago, mail traffic on this list about 5G started to
fade. We believe that now it
is time to start discussing a new generation of mobile systems, this one
called 6G.

We are not sure if 3GPP is starting to work on the very first steps of 6G
but we are already observing that 6G discussions started to be included in
the conference call for papers, scopes, etc.

We invite the list members to inform the list on what are the issues in 6G,
what are the requirements, etc. Hopefully the discussions may lead us to
any possible work in IETF.

Regards,
Behcet & Dirk

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 21:21:59 +0000

Hi all,
I tend to agree that there are discussions elsewhere on ‘6G’ (see e.g. https://www.groundai.com/project/deep-learning-for-ultra-reliable-and-low-latency-communications-in-6g-networks/) and ML & AI (machine learning and artificial intelligence) are identified there as major trends towards ‘beyond 5G’, but AFAIK 3GPP is very reluctant to start a new numerology rather than talk about enhanced phases of 5G (at least with Rel. 18 on the horizon) … I think experts and delegates would agree that there are still many interesting issues to be dealt with here.
BTW I just found a first hint to Rel. 18 in this new SI on AI/ML Model Transfer in 5GS: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/TSGS_86/Docs/SP-191040.zip
Hope this helps!
Just my 2 Cents
 ;-)
Kind regards
Dirk

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Sent: Dienstag, 19. Mai 2020 16:39
To: 5GANGIP <[email-masked]>
Cc: von Hugo, Dirk <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Launching 6G Talk

Hello all,

Almost about two years ago, mail traffic on this list about 5G started to fade. We believe that now it
is time to start discussing a new generation of mobile systems, this one called 6G.

We are not sure if 3GPP is starting to work on the very first steps of 6G but we are already observing that 6G discussions started to be included in the conference call for papers, scopes, etc.

We invite the list members to inform the list on what are the issues in 6G, what are the requirements, etc. Hopefully the discussions may lead us to any possible work in IETF.

Regards,
Behcet & Dirk

---

From: "Schumacher L." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:09:38 +0200

Dear Behcet,

> We invite the list members to inform the list on what are the issues
> in 6G, what are the requirements, etc.

September 2019 issue of IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine featured 6G,
please refer to
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=8805285&punumber=10209
:

  * Defining 6G: Challenges and Opportunities [From the Guest Editors] -
    Klaus David ; Jaafar Elmirghani ; Harald Haas ; Xiao-Hu You
  * 6G Technologies: Key Drivers, Core Requirements, System
    Architectures, and Enabling Technologies - Baiqing Zong ; Chen Fan ;
    Xiyu Wang ; Xiangyang Duan ; Baojie Wang ; Jianwei Wang
  * 6G Wireless Networks: Vision, Requirements, Architecture, and Key
    Technologies - Zhengquan Zhang ; Yue Xiao ; Zheng Ma ; Ming Xiao ;
    Zhiguo Ding ; Xianfu Lei ; George K. Karagiannidis ; Pingzhi Fan
  * 6G: The Next Frontier: From Holographic Messaging to Artificial
    Intelligence Using Subterahertz and Visible Light Communication -
    Emilio Calvanese Strinati ; Sergio Barbarossa ; Jose Luis
    Gonzalez-Jimenez ; Dimitri Ktenas ; Nicolas Cassiau ; Luc Maret ;
    Cedric Dehos

Best regards,
LS

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:55:46 +0200

Behcet,

Thanks for the message.

Before the 4G and 5Generation of networks there were also the 5th and
6th generation of computers.

Before the covid outbreak I was almost certain to get my hands on a
connected 5G smartphone before the end of 2020.  Not anymore am I so
certain.  Because I witnessed an average of 10year span between 3G, 4G
and 5G almost up to now.  So I wonder whether in 2030 will I get my
hands on a 6G connected smartphone.

I saw a call for papers on Dec. 3rd, 2019.  In that CfP "Special Issue
on 6G Intelligent Communications", there was an interesting mention of a
PHY topic for 6G.  That is "Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces".  In some
of the trials of 802.11-OCB we considered how such cheap IRSs could
extend radio coverage, thus bringing significant cost reductions.  For
example, on a sinuous road on a mountain, an IRS might be placed at each
curve, and only one 6G base station would be needed.  This is a PHY
layer topic, so probably not to work on at IETF.

On a 5G topic, I heard during the initial phases of the COVID outbreak
that some might blame some things of the virus on 5G; that message was
saying something like Wuhan got the virus because of the 5G deployment
there; I am not sure whether Wuhan 5G is at 3.5GHz, because that is the
only differentiating aspect of 5G compared to 4G that might impact
chemistry/biology, and I admit I know nothing about biology/chemistry.
These 5G-covid relationships seem a stretch to me, as there are many
non-scientific claims about the virus (pollution, magnetic fields; not
to mention the conspiracy theories), but I thought mentioning this blame
of virus to 5G, because I think I heard it in a few places.

In building a hypothetical list of answers to the question of what is
6G, what are its distinctive characteristics, like huge bandwidth,
almost-zero latency, quasi-universal coverage, I would definitely add an
answer telling that 6G uses IPv6 natively and that there is no IPv6 in
UDP/IPv4 encapsulation in GTP; further a more advanced 6G system might
use no other IPv4 address, no 127.0.0.1, no A entry in a DNS in that
network, and no IPv4 stack on computers connected to that network.

Probably, also what people work on right now with Routing Headers at
IETF, might be appropriate to label as "for 6G", if they dare it
strongly enough.  Maybe all new protocols being worked on at IETF
currently might land in 6G space somewhere(?).

Finally, I would like to mention that in Europe recently there were
several ICT-x calls for EU-funded projects that were targetted at 5G.
The successful applicants gained projects that are named with the 5G
prefix, like 5G-CARMEN, 5G-CROCO, and many more.  At this time, however,
I think there is no more open call for 5G oriented projects.  I think
people now ponder over how to create the new calls for new project
proposals for years 2021 to 2027.  I am not sure whether they will be
targetted to 5G, or to 6G or so.  I suspect it's a bit early, but I
really dont know.

Alex

PS: In my humble oppinion, equally important, there are other points
that one could blind herself (himself) if s/he did not consider when
talking 5G, so I must mention them, because they might be important to
6G as well.  The China-USA situation about Huawei, the Huawei strategy
(I think I heard strange potential directions like 5G unit being for
sale if someone wanted to buy it?), the Qualcomm interest, and the
economy slowdown due to virus outbreak.  These points are very high
level, medical, political, well away from technology sophistication.
But, by some long and complicated link, these points might condition
whether or not we need to, or even if we are able to, work on what would
be a natural successor to 5G, 5G+, Beyond 5G...

PPS: Administratively, one might think to rename this list to something
like "6GANGIP" or?  Renaming a list has been traditionally a difficult
task at IETF.  Some people maintain old names between brackets but new
names in the description like "6GANGIP <[email-masked]>", new
[6gangip] in the Subject line; others do mass re-subscriptions to new
lists.  Each time there are difficulties.  But the problem of moving to
a new name for the list is still there, and worth considering.

Le 19/05/2020 à 16:39, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> Hello all,
> 
> Almost about two years ago, mail traffic on this list about 5G 
> started to fade. We believe that now it is time to start discussing
> a new generation of mobile systems, this one called 6G.
> 
> We are not sure if 3GPP is starting to work on the very first steps 
> of 6G but we are already observing that 6G discussions started to be 
> included in the conference call for papers, scopes, etc.
> 
> in 6G, what are the requirements, etc. Hopefully the discussions may 
> lead us to any possible work in IETF.
> 
> Regards, Behcet & Dirk
> 
> _______________________________________________ 5gangip mailing list
>  [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 17:18:24 +0100

On 20/05/2020 14:55, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> that message was
> chemistry/biology
In UK the fear is about 26GHz, and predates covid-19. ITU doesn't help 
by saying there is an absence of evidence of harm, conspicuously not 
saying there is evidence of absence.

[snip]

> almost-zero latency, quasi-universal coverage,
Those were all supposed to be features of 5G, yet so far only eMBB has 
been delivered.

> I would definitely add an
> answer telling that 6G uses IPv6 natively
Or maybe it'll use something completely different. Mobile operators 
think IPv4 has too much overhead, and IPv6 headers are bigger; they also 
think fixed addresses are a security risk, so changing to IPv6 doesn't 
even eliminate NAT.

[snip]

> task at IETF
Well, 3GPP still has 3G in its name, so sticking with 5G should be fine.

-- 
John Grant
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
http://www.ninetiles.com

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:09:55 +0000

Dear all,
FYI - another initiative was started by ATIS as mentioned here: https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/us-urged-to-take-reins-on-6g/ 
Maybe that raises some chance for funding for the US-based people here?
Good luck!
Kind regards
Dirk

-----Original Message-----
From: 5gangip <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of John Grant
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2020 18:18
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk

On 20/05/2020 14:55, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> there; I am not sure whether Wuhan 5G is at 3.5GHz, because that is 
> the only differentiating aspect of 5G compared to 4G that might impact 
> chemistry/biology
In UK the fear is about 26GHz, and predates covid-19. ITU doesn't help by saying there is an absence of evidence of harm, conspicuously not saying there is evidence of absence.

[snip]

> almost-zero latency, quasi-universal coverage,
Those were all supposed to be features of 5G, yet so far only eMBB has been delivered.

[snip]

_______________________________________________
5gangip mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:43:45 -0500

> Those were all supposed to be features of 5G, yet so far only eMBB has
Can we identify this as the Issue 1 as indicated on the subject line? Let's
continue to discuss it.

Hopefully also over time we identify other issues of interest in the future.

Let's go!

Behcet

---

From: David Lake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 21:44:52 +0000

I made this comment at the start of the 5G work at IETF (DMM, netslices, 5gangip, et al).

What we are talking about is VERY relevant to “beyond 5G” but IETF typically takes a more short-term view of the world.

Shouldn’t “6G” therefore be an IRTF group?

That would enable the scope to be both broader and less-well-defined.

David

From: 5gangip <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: 25 May 2020 15:44
To: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Cc: 5GANGIP <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk -- Issue 1

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Grant <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

[snip]

Can we identify this as the Issue 1 as indicated on the subject line? Let's continue to discuss it.

Let's go!

Behcet

[snip]

--
John Grant
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
http://www.ninetiles.com<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninetiles.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IDXjKALMcrv2Y9b%2FhGJ1Xj552oMfMD4n13eae3tj%2Bkc%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
5gangip mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F5gangip&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IpdHWTI3%2BtBK9X31cJoCFmdivSBykkrNNdfWotPVsVk%3D&reserved=0>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:56:44 +0200

In trying to identify what is 6G, one might think about requirements.

A bandwidth requirement would need to leap to maybe 3 times more than 
the earlier generation.

We would thus talk about 10Gbit/s bandwidth to the end user, over the 
air, for 6G.

The latency exhibited by a ping command - the RTT field - would be 
required to fit in a nano-second range.

Alex

Le 25/05/2020 à 16:43, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:54:13 -0500

Hi David,

> I made this comment at the start of the 5G work at IETF (DMM, netslices,
We missed it last time, let's not do that this time.

> What we are talking about is VERY relevant to “beyond 5G” but IETF
> typically takes a more short-term view of the world.
>
>
>

True but in this group we do have time :)

Maybe.

>
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* 5gangip <[email-masked]> *On Behalf Of *Behcet Sarikaya
> *Sent:* 25 May 2020 15:44
> *To:* John Grant <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* 5GANGIP <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: [5gangip] Launching 6G Talk -- Issue 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninetiles.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IDXjKALMcrv2Y9b%2FhGJ1Xj552oMfMD4n13eae3tj%2Bkc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F5gangip&data=02%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7Cfa6011a67f214c20bc7308d800ba15fd%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C0%7C637260146519443722&sdata=IpdHWTI3%2BtBK9X31cJoCFmdivSBykkrNNdfWotPVsVk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:57:16 -0500

Hi Alex,

> required to fit in a nano-second range.
The above are kind of non-IETF issues.

Maybe a requirement on AI (artificial intelligence) maybe more relevant?

Behcet

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 15:05:15 +0200

Le 27/05/2020 à 16:57, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 8:56 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 

Behcet,

AI is one of these fields of development very important happening since 
a few years now, and strangely not reflected at IETF, despite its close 
relationship to communications and the Internet.

I mean, we did see at IETF Cloud meetings, IoT meetings, and so on.  But 
nothing about AI.

AI might have to do a lot with Vehicular networks, and it is from a 
Vehicular networks magazine that a poster here extracted 6G references.

AI might be very much a core network issue, rather than an edge link to 
UE issue.  And I suspect 6G cellular networks would be 'flat', free of 
imposed structures such as gNB-GGSN links, etc.  In that case, one might 
think that an AI core network might be useful for 6G as much as for a 
wired line backbone network.  So probably 6G and AI might not be an 
aspect to ponder over.

AI techniques might be needed to develop more intelligent encoding 
schemes for over the air codecs such as to bring even more bandwidth. 
What SCDMA might be for 5G maybe AI-DMA might be new features to think 
of.  But that is AI applied to PHY layer.

So...

Alex

>      > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Grant <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>      > <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >      > that message was
>      >      > saying something like Wuhan got the virus because of the 5G
>      >     deployment
>      >      > there; I am not sure whether Wuhan 5G is at 3.5GHz,
>     because that
>      >     is the
>      >      > only differentiating aspect of 5G compared to 4G that
>     might impact
>      >      > chemistry/biology
>      >      > In building a hypothetical list of answers to the question
>     of what is
>      >      > 6G, what are its distinctive characteristics, like huge
>     bandwidth,
>      >      > almost-zero latency, quasi-universal coverage,
>      > Can we identify this as the Issue 1 as indicated on the subject
>     line?
>      > Let's continue to discuss it.
>      >
>      >      > I would definitely add an
>      >      > answer telling that 6G uses IPv6 natively
>      >     think IPv4 has too much overhead, and IPv6 headers are
>     bigger; they
>      >     also
>      >      > PPS: Administratively, one might think to rename this list to
>      >     something
>      >      > like "6GANGIP" or?  Renaming a list has been traditionally a
>      >     difficult
>      >      > task at IETF
>     <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 16:13:31 +0200

> Well, 3GPP still has 3G in its name, so sticking with 5G should be fine.

I wonder how long can that last, for 3GPP to develop 4G, 5G, 6G...  The 
terminology really makes no sense.

When terminology makes no sense it means there are some bigger problems 
behind waiting to burst.

The sooner they change the name of 3GPP the better for 6G developments.

Maybe 'LTE' is a better term than XG, where X is a number.

Alex