Thanks Kaushik for your comments. Need a quick clarification (see below ..)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM Majumdar, Kausik < kausik.majum...@commscope.com> wrote: > Hi Uma et all, > > > > Thanks for putting together this draft to describe the framework for > mapping the slices in 5G mobile systems to transport slices in IP towards > the UPF. This framework is valuable and we are actually looking for further > extensions of the TN characteristics in non-mobility domain (SD-WAN) and > that is being worked out to be submitted in RTG WG. > Thanks. > > > I would also request you to consider the Security Characteristics in > addition to the current Transport Path characteristics. Preserving the > security characteristics in non-mobility SD-WAN domain would be an > important aspects. My suggestions would be to extend the current SST for > secure traffic. As a result, it would be good if we can define additional > UDP Source Port range to capture the Security characteristics for the > current service types. > We already described the generic case where security is applied (section 2.6), when the user plane emits the packet to transport (could be N3/N9 interfaces or S1U interface terminating at SGWs). That addresses mostly shared transport cases. If I understand correctly, you want security done by PE's before gNB/UPF?? I can imagine few usef of this but can you explain why you are looking for this option? > > > I would be happy to share more context on the use cases and discuss > further on the approaches. > Sure. But is this a mandatory option for your E2E use case with SD-WAN beyond mobility domain? -- Uma C. > > > Regards, > > Kausik > > > >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
