FYI. This is the notes that Carlos captured. Thank you Carlos!! We are also waiting for Lyle to share his notes. Please review and comment, if you see any mistakes.
Sri On 3/21/18, 7:14 AM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <c...@it.uc3m.es> wrote: >Hi Sri, > >Please find my notes attached (they are drafty and I couldn't get some >things). Hope they help. > >Thanks, > >Carlos > >On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:19 +0000, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: >>
- Agenda bashing - Active DMM WG documents Chairs update on the status of the different active DMM WG documents: * draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-13 * draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-03: authors does not react fast enough to move the document forward. * draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-10: great work, but need more support/reviews from the WG. * draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-moblity-anchoring-08: Carlos added as co-editor, almost a reset. Needs reviews. * draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01: few discussions, there is a slot today. - Active MIPv6/PMIPv6 Maintenance WG Documents * draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-07: should be now fine, found a way to clear the DISCUSS. - 2 LS received. First one responded on Feb 2. The second is still unresponded. Suresh (AD) has not received the second one. Satoru, with 3GPP hat on: new WI in CT4, expecting the chair to do send it to the IETF, already created from 3GPP side. - FPC update. Lyle Bertz presents slides. Authors request feedback. Sri asks for implementation update. Almost 2 years with running code. 2 implementations available using ONOS. Lots of the changes in the draft come from the feedback from the implementations (that are based on version 4). Now that the document seems stable, they might updte the implementations to version 10. Suresh: not really about the content, but about the form. Are you going to check that the document is compliant with RFC8342? There is stuff to fix. - Distributed Mobility Anchoring Carlos J. Bernardos presents slides and asks for feedback. Marco: provided comments offline using track changes. Document is on the right track, but need some improvement due to the cut. Sri: do one more edit and ask he will ask for reviewers in the WG. - User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP Satoru Matsushima presents the slides. Charlie: highlighted the term control plane impact, and obviously GTP-U has a long history and it is well understood. If you don't want to have control plane impact, you will have to run GTP-C and there are not many alternatives that can be controlled by GTP-C. Satoru: investigating alternatives to the control plane. Kalyani Bogineni: you might not be restricted by GTP-C. In Rel-15 PFC is enfornced. Suresh: this is gonna get out of hand. Back in LTE times we have ad ependency list between 3GPP and IETF. We need to start tracking this more closely. XXX from Huawei (no badge): for which release is this? Sri: IETF is not selecting any protocol. We just standardize protocols. (discussion I don't get...) Arashmid Akhavain: until different solutions are analyzed, the impact cannot be assessed. Georgeios: (I didn't get the question on one LS) Is 3GPP waiting for any input regarding the selection criteria? Saturo: of course, yes. Charlie: maybe we should use the FPC. Suresh: if we want to select something officially, we can do it. - LISP for the Mobile Network Dino Farinacci presents the slides. Co-author: your underlay can be anything, IP, MPLS. Arashmid Akhavain: (didn't get the question) Tom Herbert: confused about what you propose in the data plane. Is LISP data plane part of this? Dino: we don't want to do IP-in-IP. All ISPs said when doing LISP in 2007: use UDP. LISP can use GTP-U as data plane. Suresh: I agree with the sentiment, but this is not going to happen (referring to work together, doing one spec together by different SDOs). Jari: interesting work. About the collaboration among different SDOs, I don't think we can do all one spec, different things each of them do. - SRv6 for Mobile User Plane Satoru Matsushima presents the slides. Sri: any possibility of working without requiring IPv6? (not sure I got the question) Satoru: we already have code. Suresh: SRv6 does not allow insertion right now. There is a draft specifying some coses where this insertion is safe. XX from Huawei (some guy than before, no badge): (cannot get the question) Tom Herbert: this is using IP-in-IP as default. Why not using UDP encapsulation? Darren Kurzs??: some comment I didn't get. John K: how this would work when you have multiple UPFs? SRv6 as Data Plane for 3GPP N9 Interface Arashmid Akhavain presents the slides. Dave Allen: comments that something is a very bad idea. Arashmid: clarifies it. Fabio M.: Dinos presented LISP control plane with LISP user plane or GTP-U. LISP could also be used with SRv6. Samita: Every single solution is using GTP-C. Optimized Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G Kalyani Bogineni presents the slides. Satoru: appreciate that you made this document. Joel Harpern: strongly agains the WG adopting or using this as a response to 3GPP. Mobility-aware Floating Anchor Sri Gundavelli presents the slides. Suresh acts as chair while Sri presents. Charlie: there seems to be a lot of signalling everytime a device moves. John K: optimization takes place between the origin and the destination. 3GPP is doing something different. Seems like SDN solution, there is a limit on what you can do, distributed routing. Sri: only for certain cases we do it. Dave Allan: ellimination of anchors when they only do forwarding is relatively easy, but when yoi look into virtualization and state, it's different. Huawei guy with no badge: I didn't get the question. Proxy Mobile IPv6 extensions for Distributed Mobility Carlos J. Bernardos presents the draft. Charlie: there is previous work, like FMIPv6, context transfer that might be considered. Consensus on adopting as WG document, to be confirmed on the ML. Router Advertisement Extension for On-Demand Mobility Wu-chi Feng presents the slides. Philip Earoley (BT): is there any negotiation? Wu-chi: there are options put in the RA and the UE chooses. John K: are you going to look at what happens if the 3GPP control plane advertises one prefix and the RA another one? Lorenzo Colleti: you will get a hard time getting this adopted by 6man. Danny: we looked at PVDs, there are alternatives, including using DHCP. 3GPP prefers the RA alternative. Sri: we will discuss on the mailing list, with 6man chairs and we will find a way. DMM Deployment Models Seil Jeon presents the slides. Charlie: does it make sense to show 5G architecture and show how it maps? Meeting adjourned.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
