Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?

Thu Aug 6 08:21:27 UTC 2020

On 5/Aug/20 18:34, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

>
> Release 16 is just out and if it has delivered the 5G vision, 
> latency between devices connected over the same radio interface 
> (which I take to mean the same gNB),
> is now < 1 ms.
> Isn't that a good improvement?

Well, I doubt the radio has any service intelligence. It's just a
conduit. Depending on why two devices on the same radio have to
communicate, a cleverer system deep in the core would need to process
that before handing it back to the radio network.

Of course, it makes the case for deploying services at each base station
to localize services, but that could get expensive for an entire radio
network, particularly within a 100km Metro where fibre latency will
remain at ±1ms anyway.

Not to mention that with the exception of things like cars in a traffic
jam or on the same piece of highway, the chances of two devices talking
to each other over the same radio can't always be guaranteed.

>  
> I understand that this is a key enabler for driverless cars
> (real-time, automated vehicle navigation) - the V2I part of V2X.

I look forward to seeing this.

> Here's one blogger who agrees with you
> <https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/16515/349885?utm_source=brighttalk-recommend&utm_campaign=network_weekly_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=company&utm_term=312020> 
> (@19:46) about coverage - and count me in.
> But, I guess, it's fair to say that this is the chicken-and-egg
> conundrum :)

The video won't play. Could be my browser.

Anyway, time will tell. I see 5G roll-out density like rolling out fibre
in places only where the postal service can get to. But I hope I'm wrong.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200806/1ccf5972/attachment.html>