private 5G networks?

Wed Dec 1 14:37:29 UTC 2021

>
> This should give a good overview:
>
> https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf
>
> It is in fact quite interesting.
>

Thanks for sharing that. Excellent read, really interesting stuff.

Couple quick takeaways:

- The design is clearly well thought out to account for the environment of
tunnels and moving trains.
- They have designed redundancy and diversity into the systems that would
really make it difficult to execute a prolonged attack.
- Certain aspects of the underground environment actually make some things
easier than a wide open area.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:25 AM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 23:48, Shane Ronan <shane at ronan-online.com> wrote:
>
>> Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via
>> Wifi, I find that very interesting.
>>
>
> This should give a good overview:
>
> https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf
>
> It is in fact quite interesting.
>
> And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi
> to the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is
> the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the argument that
> a system critical implementation _must_ be based on licensed frequencies
> does not hold as nothing could be more critical than a system that prevents
> trains from colliding.
>
> I do claim that the reason these metro train systems can boast of a very
> high uptime is not that it would be especially hard to jam their wifi based
> systems. No it is in fact probably quite easy to do so. It is just that
> nobody does it. Because that way lies jail and there are also so many other
> ways to stop the trains (rocks on the tracks etc). The same holds true for
> the warehouse as someone trying to cause trouble could just as easily do
> something to the power, cut a fiber cable, start a fire, call in a bomb
> threat, etc.
>
> Also having a licensed frequency only stops those that are law abiding and
> it is never legal to cause harmful interference to sabotage the operations
> of a warehouse.
>
> That leaves the risk that the wifi frequencies are blocked by other legal
> users of the frequencies. This risk is especially low on the new 6 GHz
> frequencies because the range is not great and you do have full control of
> what equipment enters your warehouse. The risk is essentially that the
> neighbor is also a warehouse with a wifi based system. The physical
> separation would in most cases be enough that this is not a problem and
> otherwise it would not be too much trouble to talk to the neighbor to agree
> on some frequency split on the bases at the border between the two systems.
> No need to pay a third party or the government for that.
>
> I did read about a use case for a private 5G network however. A system
> covering the harbor. Wifi would be at a disadvantage here because it is a
> large outside area with a lot of third parties entering, both ships and
> trucks. I imagine there also exists similar such a large mining operation
> etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211201/56867ed4/attachment.html>