Dino:
This paper does describe the architecture. This information in a section would
help and also explain what is different between
LISP and ILSR. Figure 3 shows SMF for ILSR, AMF+, Nsmf+, Namf+, and ILSR4. You
can explain what the '+' means and what the
new functionalities in SMF for ILSR are
The other authors can comment but to me ILSR and LISP are the same thing.
ILSR is an architecture that can use the LISP protocol set.
Dino
> On Feb 6, 2018, at 10:03 PM, Bogineni, Kalyani
> wrote:
>
> Dino:
>
> This paper does describe the architecture. This information in a section
> wou
Satoru:
Your slide 6 shows one implementation (other operators may have other
implementations).
Below is the Figure from CT4 TR 29.891. Can you show how your slide 7 impacts
this
end-to-end protocol stack and which interfaces are impacted?
[cid:image002.png@01D39F22.C6C2DC80]
Your sl
It could be a nice option to keep the data plane specific control (the mapping
DB you refer to) in the user plane and
take a common N4 to update the mapping DB in case of mobility. But I think that
clashes with the clear data plane / control plane
separation in nextgen. And: there may be data pla
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>
Section 8.3 provides the argument that singleton addresses are needed
for privacy-sensitive communications. For prac
HI Sri,
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Thanks! That sounds like some interesting trick. But, let me make sure I
> understood this correctly. So, the
>
identifier space for the MN is encoded in the upper 64-bits. Now, the UE
> c
Marco, Sri:
Here is the services based 5G architecture.
[cid:image001.png@01D39F65.E35E55C0]
SMF is a control plane entity and talks to the User plane functions (UPF)
through N4 interface as specified in 3GPP TS 29.244.
Here are two variants:
Option 1: Mapping DB talks to the UPFs u
Hi Kalyani,
my current take is to keep the data plane independent of a specific mapping
base. Even if it comes with an extended control plane per the two options that
you draw, I personally don’t think that SMF and UPF/Data Plane should
communicate through the service-based architecture.
marco
Marco:
Response Inline
From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:10 PM
To: Bogineni, Kalyani
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; Dino Farinacci
; i...@ietf.org; dmm
Subject: Re: [Ila] [DMM] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-herbert-ila-m
Hello Kalyani,
Thank you for your feedbacks. I’ll take it into account.
And yes, slide 6 shows just one deployment scenario. A spreadsheet which I
shared in my google drive would help to see the rest of scenarios.
Perhaps those would be deployed on somewhere in operators.
Cheers,
--satoru
> 20
10 matches
Mail list logo
