Subject: [5gangip] 6G White Paper

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 10:14:44 -0500

Hi all,
Please check this out:

http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226842.pdf

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 18:16:03 +0100

> http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226842.pdf
It seems to be all about Big IP as in ITU-T FG Net2030, though the Focus 
Group doesn't get a mention except in one of the references.

-- 
John Grant
Chairman, ETSI ISG NIN (Non-IP Networking)
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
https://www.etsi.org/technologies/non-ip-networking
http://www.ninetiles.com

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:13:13 +0200

Le 03/07/2020 à 17:14, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> Hi all, Please check this out:
> 

Thanks for the pointer.  It does refer to many concepts from IETF, which
is excellent.  I too will refer to it when people ask me what is 6G.  So 
there are ideas to think about.

But I would also like to comment on it.

I think 6G Flagship needs input from experts when publishing this text.
  It might be that their statements are too much away from reality, and
there might be a need to be more humble when making such statements,
especially if these statements are public in nature, as the above paper
seems to be.

It is a question of Ethics.

The paper says:
> For 6G services, the fundamentals of the IP layer may need to be 
> entirely redesigned.

I wonder whether the authors have conscience of what it means to
re-design the IP layer, entirely.  It sounds pompous, if I write that
correctly.

Because there might be some difficulty in proposing IP re-designs
through the 6MAN WG which maintains the current and future version of
IP.  I know this from personal experience of trying to propose even
slight changes such as relaxing a 64bit bound rule in 6MAN WG.

I think 6G could start by analyzing why simple IPv6 is still absent from
5G (GTP carries IPv6 flows in UDP/IPv4, 64share is a non-std RFC),
despite the talk of IPv6 since the 3rd generation.  That analysis might
lead to some sensible measures, if performed following certain requirements.

The requirements of analysis of why IPv6 is absent from 5G would be
somewhere among following:
- ask the implementers.
- get feedback from the experts.
- make public some example packet dumps from deployments.
- ask the end users.
- ask the operators.
- ask the association of end users.
- ask the people who oppose 5G for health reasons.

These requirements will lead to many solutions, among which the use of
IP and IPv6.

> As it is known, the current Internet Protocol (IP) is designed based 
> on two basic concepts: statistical multiplexing and best-effort 
> forwarding.

I am 100% sure IP does not do statistical multiplexing.  Otherwise I
would have seen an implementation of some statistics function like a
Poisson distribution somewhere in the core IP stack.

Maybe instead of multiplexing the authors wanted to say bidirectional
transmission of data, as opposed to single direction.  But multiplexing?

Maybe they meant not just simplex, not just duplex, but a universal
3D-like multiplexing.  But multiplexing probably means nothing for IP(?)

If one wants to mention a basic concept of IP that is in many IP stacks,
especially in the core IP routers, it is a longest prefix match
algorithm.  It has no statistics but works more like Dirac functions: 0
or 1.

> Inter-networking is evolving away from the current single public 
> Internet due to a combination of factors such as data-concentration 
> in the multi-access edges, centralization of data in global public 
> clouds, and the onset of global broadband satellite networks.

There is a draft about this, I think.  It is about limited domains.

But the limited domains concept does not challenge the Inter-networking
per se.  The Inter-networking is still there, and Internet will still be
there.

Alex

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

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 11:24:34 +0200

> for holograms and holographic type communications

It's good to try to come up with the relevant scenarios and use-cases
that 6G might offer advantages to.

My question is, why the paper does not talk 8K in the use-cases for 6G?

I would like to mention here that holography conferences already
happened, at least in year 2017 for a conference of a political campaign
where I live.  It was not on cellular networks, but on regular fiber.
They did not need 4G or 5G for that.

I do not know why would one put holographical communications (i.e. a
high bandwidth stream of data from a multiple camera sensor to a
sophisticated 3D projector) on 6G?

Holography needs a source of about 3 cameras situated at a distance,
maybe a few meters to create that 3D effect.  The smallest rig I saw
recently used 2 cameras at about 20cm distance on a big DSLR (digital
single lens reflex camera).

That is very much larger than what a smartphone is: maybe 10cm size.
And 6G is primarily for smartphones, I think.

I think there is no smartphone planned to do holographical live capture.
  Because one couldnt have a portable smartphone that does holographical
projection.  That is way beyond imagination.

On another hand, there are new small cameras coming on the market, which
are not holography, but which do 8K live video capture.  8K is the
natural evolution of 4K from UHD, HD, HD Ready, SD, VGA, EGA and CGA.

There are also smartphones whose resolution increases regularly.

If a smartphone with 8K capability comes on the market and wants to
transmit that on cellular, it might indeed need more bandwidth than 5G
has to offer.

So, my question is, why the paper does not talk 8K in the use-cases for 6G?

Alex

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:02:03 +0100

> Poisson distribution somewhere in the core IP stack.
"Statistical multiplexing" in this context means data flows sharing a 
transmission link without being allocated a fixed proportion of the 
bandwidth, as distinct from TDM and FDM. So, in practice, packet 
switching based on addressing etc information in the headers. It's 
probably a misuse of "statistical" but taking a word and giving it a new 
meaning without paying much attention to its existing meaning is nothing 
new in our industry.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 17:49:50 +0200

Le 09/07/2020 à 14:02, John Grant a écrit :
>> I am 100% sure IP does not do statistical multiplexing.  Otherwise
>> I would have seen an implementation of some statistics function
>> like a Poisson distribution somewhere in the core IP stack.
>  bandwidth, as distinct from TDM and FDM.

Still makes little sense.

TDM and FDM of cellular links could be compared to CSMA of Ethernet, or so.

In that sense, one can say that the Internet uses all these PHY encoding
schemes from TDM to FDM to CSMA to OFDM, because IP runs on almost all 
these links which use these encodings.

But that is not multiplexing.

Maybe s/he meant 'multicast' instead which is truly an Internet term.

> So, in practice, packet switching based on addressing etc information
> in the headers.

YEs, that is what Internet uses.

> It's probably a misuse of "statistical" but taking a word and giving
> it a new meaning without paying much attention to its existing
> meaning is nothing new in our industry.
Fair enough :-)

One might then wonder whether it makes any sense to wonder about what is 
6G.  There are already papers that describe 6G and that's that :-)

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:00:01 +0200

For the sake of consistency,

Let's change the name of this list to [6gangip].

This change must be smooth: the users should not be distracted by the 
change.

If we succeed in doing that, many other email lists at IETF might take 
advantage of the results.  I think even 3gpp might take advantage of it.

Alex

Le 03/07/2020 à 17:14, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:21:19 +0100

> Maybe s/he meant 'multicast' instead which is truly an Internet term. 
Look at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_time-division_multiplexing 
which explains it more thoroughly than I have time to do.

Multicast is sending the same content to multiple destinations, which is 
actually something the Internet does not do well.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:19:33 +0200

> which explains it more thoroughly than I have time to do.

IT says this: "Statistical multiplexing is a type of communication link 
sharing,"

The 6G Flagship to claim that is the Internet ("As it is known, the 
current Internet Protocol (IP) is designed based on two basic concepts: 
statistical multiplexing and best-effort forwarding. ") is a very large 
error.

There are many links in the Internet that are not 'shared' in the sense 
of statistical multiplexing.  For example all the cellular links to the UE.

It is very much misleading.

I think the paper should be corrected or it should be retracted from the 
public web.

If they want to compare characteristics of link layers then that's fine 
to use that term 'statistical multiplexing'.  But from there to say that 
the Internet is based on statistical multiplexing basic concept there is 
a huge difference and it is wrong.

There are other terms used in 6MAN WG to characterize such things link 
link sharing: see for example NBMA in several RFCs.  But these dont 
claim either that Internet is based on NBMA.

Alex

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:27:12 -0500

> http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526226842.pdf
Hi all, thanks for good comments on the above white paper.
Now we need to identify some directions, possible one for us that most of
the people in the list would be happy about.
The direction should be different than  NMRG (network management research
group) which discusses AI and machine learning aspects,
and COINRG (computation in the network)

Also consider that improvements to IPv6 is an IETF subject
and radio link technologies are out of scope.

But still some directions in network virtualization and/or slicing could be
OK.

In short, we need to be a bit specific on what we want to do.

Regards,
Behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:53:08 -0500

Further to our previous mail:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> But still some directions in network virtualization and/or slicing could
> be OK.
>

Please read the white paper which has three main chapters on:

-service based architecture SBA which suggests mandate driven architecture
MDA, we have seen no comments on this

- new IP architecture, we have seen many comments on this

- network and data analytics services, we have seen no comments on this.

Regards,
Behcet & Dirk
-

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:52:54 +0200

Le 13/07/2020 à 18:27, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 10:14 AM Behcet Sarikaya
> <sarikaya2012@gmail..com <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, thanks for good comments on the above white paper. Now we
> need to identify some directions, possible one for us that most of

Some inspiration could be obtained from the ongoing discussions about
Horizon Europe programme.

Here are my comments relayed to IETF about what could become a call for 
proposals in Cluster 4.

> 6G and foundational connectivity technologies
> 
> Expected impacts addressed: #19 (Green), #20 (Data), #21 (Industrial
> leadership and autonomy), #22 (Digital and emerging enabling
> technology sovereignty)
> 
> Objective: develop a strong supply chain for connectivity, increase
> European competitiveness and sovereignty in core Internet
> infrastructures, and to contribute to a reduction of the growing
> effect of the Internet on the global energy consumption with the aim
> of achieving a climate neutral Internet.
> 
> Current status: today European suppliers of connectivity systems are
> well placed with around 40% of global 5G market share, but with high
> competitive pressure from Asian and US players. In terms of
> technology, first 5G standards are available since end of 2017
> enabling Gigabit/s speeds and ~millisecond latencies. Trusted
> industrial services based on 5G technology are at very early stage.
> 
> Achievements sought / targets:

> •	Reinforce European leadership in connectivity, devices and service
> infrastructure, with European capabilities in shaping future
> connectivity (6G) standards, keeping a strong position in the network
> supply market and seizing opportunities ofintegration with new value
> chains such as cloud and edge computing as well as components and
> devices beyond smartphones. The target is EU industry holding at
> least 40% of the global market of future connectivity (6G) systems
> •	Enable a massive digital and green transitions towards low carbon
> footprint of conventional (vertical) industries such as automated
> factories, connected cars, energy grids, agriculture, smart
> healthcare by managing the exponential increase of connected devices
> and objects (speed, latency, energy, intelligence). The target is to
> contribute to vertical sectors keeping a carbon emission levels of
> 2015 (Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) objectives).
> •	Enable networks to deliver advanced real-time sub-millisecond
> latency applications that are competitive, secure and

Sub-millisecond would be about above-Gbit/s bandwidths.

To that, I would add that volume is important as well.  Many sources of 
6G ambitions talk in terms of volume of data transmitted.  That volume 
is probably more important than mere bandwidth.

> privacy-preserving, in areas such as autonomous driving,
> manufacturing and farming.

There should be carefulness about this.

In the same line of thought I also saw mentioned 'remote surgery' for 
future 5G and for 6G.

But remote surgery was already mentioned many years ago.  I remember 
VDSL was one such context.  I have also seen and played with some 
dentist surgeon's devices that could be used for training, and could 
communicate on the Internet.

However, it does not materialize.  Remote surgery is not something to 
put into someone's smartphone.  Or maybe we dont really understant surgery.

The same applies to manufacturing, farming and to a certain context to 
autonomous driving.

For example, 5G is claimed to offer so perfect network communication 
that one tele-operate a self driving car on 5G.  But the initial trials 
of tele-operation encounter so many other problems than the network 
communication system that it might be that 5G is outdated when all these 
other problems are solved.

Manufacturing: it is typically factory floors.  It's very east to bring 
reliable Ethernet and fiber there.  Why would one put a glitchy 
smartphone-specific 6G in there?  Do we really understand what 
manufacturing and Industry 4.0 needs?  (Industry 6.0 maybe).

> The target is > 10 million connected
> objects/km² for Smart City scenarios
> •	Enable trusted and energy-efficient network infrastructures

Yes, I fully agree with the energy-efficiency aspect.

This is a matter of responsibility and Ethics.

I heard people complaining about jet planes polluting the Earth and then 
the manufacturers of said jets complained about energy-hunger 
underground data centers that would not exist if there were no 
smartphones.  All these complaints are valid.

> delivering critical services as well as a dynamic multi-vendor supply
> market through new radio technologies, new architectures and open
> network and service paradigms such as Terahertz communications,
> versatile spectrum technologies, zero touch network automation, AI,

In the zerotouch network automation there is also this Let's Encrypt and 
ACME which constitute a significant step towards better security in the 
Internet.

> blockchain and EMF aware networks. An average decrease of network

I suspect EMF aware networks (EMF: Electro-Magnetic Field) would reply 
to citizien's health worries about 5G, which is good.

> consumption by a factor of 10 is targeted, as well as new classes of
> applications beyond 5G capabilities and an Internet of Sense. 

Internet of Sense?  It is new.

I suggest the following target too:
- 4G and 5G networks achieve a form of use of IPv6, but there is still 
no full native IPv6 deployed in 5G networks.  GRE still runs on IPv4 and 
5G smartphones still need translation functions in order to run IPv6. 
In 6G, there should be a requirement of full native IPv6 usage.

> Means/links: An institutionalised partnership (‘Smart Networks and
> Services’) is currently proposed to enable European industrial and
> academic stakeholders to design and implement common roadmaps in
> significantly research-intensive areas. Foundational technologies,
> long term, very high risk and disruptive concepts on radio and full
> optical networks as well as new IoT real-time concepts are addressed
> outside of the proposed Smart Networks and Services partnership.

Yes, this partnership is advancing.

But there is need of more collaboration worldwide.

Alex

> The direction should be different than  NMRG (network management 
> research group) which discusses AI and machine learning aspects, and
> COINRG (computation in the network)
> 
> Also consider that improvements to IPv6 is an IETF subject and radio
> link technologies are out of scope.
> 
> But still some directions in network virtualization and/or slicing
> could be OK.
> 
> Regards, Behcet

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:41:44 +0200

This morning in the news again (last time it was Mobile World Congress
of 2019) there is talk about remote surgery use case, with a
demonstration in Italy.  The presenters claim the use of 5G.

However, it seems the use of 5G is related to streaming a video of
what's happening, and really not the surgeon's gesture per se.

There is talk of 200ms latency, which is ridiculuously high, reminding
more of 3G rather than 4G or 5G claims of 1ms.

It seems the realized surgery operation is still on fiber and Ethernet.

So, to be clear, the current state-of-the-art of 5G for remote surgery
operations is really more of a false claim, apparently made by promoters
of 5G rather by the technology inclined.

This makes wonder whether the remote surgery use-case is relevant for 6G?

Would one allow her or his body to be subject to an intrusion based on
technology like cellular technology, or like IP, which has no guarantee
of packet delivery?

Or is it more like a father on video, remotely assisting to a birth
event via his smartphone on 6G?  We have seen such a gluing well during
the initial COVID crises, but it was skype on WiFi.  Not sure 6G would
have anything to bring in here.

Alex

Le 15/07/2020 à 14:52, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Some inspiration could be obtained from the ongoing discussions
> about Horizon Europe programme.
> 
> Here are my comments relayed to IETF about what could become a call
> for proposals in Cluster 4.
> 
>> Expected impacts addressed: #19 (Green), #20 (Data), #21
>> (Industrial leadership and autonomy), #22 (Digital and emerging
>> enabling technology sovereignty)
>> 
>> Objective: develop a strong supply chain for connectivity,
>> increase European competitiveness and sovereignty in core Internet 
>> effect of the Internet on the global energy consumption with the
>> aim of achieving a climate neutral Internet.
>> 
>> Current status: today European suppliers of connectivity systems
>> are well placed with around 40% of global 5G market share, but with
>> high competitive pressure from Asian and US players. In terms of 
>> •    Reinforce European leadership in connectivity, devices and
>> service infrastructure, with European capabilities in shaping
>> future connectivity (6G) standards, keeping a strong position in
>> the network supply market and seizing opportunities ofintegration
>> with new value chains such as cloud and edge computing as well as
>> components and devices beyond smartphones. The target is EU
>> industry holding at least 40% of the global market of future
>> connectivity (6G) systems •    Enable a massive digital and green
>> transitions towards low carbon footprint of conventional (vertical)
>> industries such as automated factories, connected cars, energy
>> grids, agriculture, smart healthcare by managing the exponential
>> increase of connected devices and objects (speed, latency, energy,
>> intelligence). The target is to contribute to vertical sectors
>> keeping a carbon emission levels of 2015 (Global e-Sustainability
>> Initiative (GeSI) objectives). •    Enable networks to deliver
>> advanced real-time sub-millisecond latency applications that are
>> competitive, secure and
> 
> To that, I would add that volume is important as well.  Many sources
> of 6G ambitions talk in terms of volume of data transmitted.  That
> volume is probably more important than mere bandwidth.
> 
> The same applies to manufacturing, farming and to a certain context
> to autonomous driving.
> 
>  that one tele-operate a self driving car on 5G.  But the initial
> trials of tele-operation encounter so many other problems than the
> network communication system that it might be that 5G is outdated
> when all these other problems are solved.
> 
> Manufacturing: it is typically factory floors.  It's very east to
> bring reliable Ethernet and fiber there.  Why would one put a glitchy
>> The target is > 10 million connected objects/km² for Smart City
>> scenarios •    Enable trusted and energy-efficient network
>> infrastructures
> 
> I heard people complaining about jet planes polluting the Earth and
> then the manufacturers of said jets complained about energy-hunger 
>> delivering critical services as well as a dynamic multi-vendor
>> supply market through new radio technologies, new architectures and
>> open network and service paradigms such as Terahertz
>> communications, versatile spectrum technologies, zero touch network
>> automation, AI,
> 
> In the zerotouch network automation there is also this Let's Encrypt
> and ACME which constitute a significant step towards better security
> in the Internet.
> 
> I suspect EMF aware networks (EMF: Electro-Magnetic Field) would
> reply to citizien's health worries about 5G, which is good.
> 
>> consumption by a factor of 10 is targeted, as well as new classes
>> of applications beyond 5G capabilities and an Internet of Sense.
> 
> I suggest the following target too: - 4G and 5G networks achieve a
> form of use of IPv6, but there is still no full native IPv6 deployed
> in 5G networks.  GRE still runs on IPv4 and 5G smartphones still need
> translation functions in order to run IPv6. In 6G, there should be a
> requirement of full native IPv6 usage.
> 
>> long term, very high risk and disruptive concepts on radio and
>> full optical networks as well as new IoT real-time concepts are
>> addressed outside of the proposed Smart Networks and Services
>> partnership.
> 
>> research group) which discusses AI and machine learning aspects,
>> Also consider that improvements to IPv6 is an IETF subject and
>> radio link technologies are out of scope.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 5gangip mailing
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: "Aeneas Dodd-Noble (noblea)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:16:05 +0000

At MWC 2019, there was a demo of remote band playing with singer in one location and guitar in another.  The singer was connected over 5G and the latency was definitely low, but the largest contribution to the latency was the signal processing of the voice and rendering – 20ms.

Remote surgery would have the same problem and the speed of light is finite so any physical/routing distance from doctor to patient would also be an issue.   6G Radio is not going to solve this.

Better application performance and true MEC will be needed.  5G and 6G cannot address the application latency but we can look at better network topologies to make applications really take advantage of proximity.

From: 5gangip <[email-masked]> on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:42 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] Soliciting Ideas in Direction in 6G - remote surgery use-case

Alex

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 10:14 AM Behcet Sarikaya
<sarikaya2012@gmail..com<mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail..com> <mailto:[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]%3e>> wrote:

Regards,

Behcet

industrial services based on 5G technology are at very early
stage.

However, it does not materialize.  Remote surgery is not something to
  put into someone's smartphone.  Or maybe we dont really understant
surgery.

Alex

Regards, Behcet

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

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

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

---

From: Luca Muscariello <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:41:17 +0200

On this topic, it is worth having a look at the LoLa project
https://lola.conts.it that provides software as well as hardware
requirements to
perform music interactions from remote. It addresses the application
latency for this use case and it has been used essentially
over Internet2, Geant and Garr networks serving college/conservatory of
music, music halls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0eagE2Gzgg
great video

Luca

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:16 PM Aeneas Dodd-Noble (noblea) <noblea=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> At MWC 2019, there was a demo of remote band playing with singer in one
> location and guitar in another.  The singer was connected over 5G and the
> latency was definitely low, but the largest contribution to the latency was
> the signal processing of the voice and rendering – 20ms.
>
>
>
> Remote surgery would have the same problem and the speed of light is
> finite so any physical/routing distance from doctor to patient would also
> be an issue.   6G Radio is not going to solve this.
>
>
>
> Better application performance and true MEC will be needed.  5G and 6G
> cannot address the application latency but we can look at better network
> topologies to make applications really take advantage of proximity.
>
>
>
> *From: *5gangip <[email-masked]> on behalf of Alexandre
> Petrescu <[email-masked]>
> *Date: *Friday, July 17, 2020 at 5:42 AM
> *To: *"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *Re: [5gangip] Soliciting Ideas in Direction in 6G - remote
> surgery use-case
>
>
>
> <sarikaya2012@gmail..com <mailto:[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]%3e>> wrote:
>
>
>