On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> I’d ask the question another way:
>
> Would users like to set QoS bits that may charge them more for service? Could
> they set bits to get cheaper service?
>
Hey, if I could set some bits and save a few bucks (legally) on my
mobile phone bil
I’d ask the question another way:
Would users like to set QoS bits that may charge them more for service? Could
they set bits to get cheaper service?
Let alone if the operator can deliver the service (in this net-neutrality-less
era).
Dino
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 3:15 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> Dino brought up a good point. Here is my two cents worth:
Not sure which point.
> As it was explained by Sridhar, each UE can have multiple contexts. For
> example, today some operators provide Data and VoLTE service to their
> customers. These two services are represented by separate GTP tu
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Arashmid Akhavain
wrote:
> Dino brought up a good point. Here is my two cents worth:
>
> As it was explained by Sridhar, each UE can have multiple contexts. For
> example, today some operators provide Data and VoLTE service to their
> customers. These two service
Dino brought up a good point. Here is my two cents worth:
As it was explained by Sridhar, each UE can have multiple contexts. For
example, today some operators provide Data and VoLTE service to their
customers. These two services are represented by separate GTP tunnels in the
core with each tu
Today TEID is a MUST in mobile core and as Sridhar indicated in his emails
identifies a bearer or context.
I agree with Tom. A mechanism to encode the TEID should work.
Arashmid
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: 06 September 2018 12:18
To: Tom Herbert
Cc
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Marco Liebsch wrote:
> Tom, Behcet, I think TEID may still be needed in some cases, e.g. for mapping
> to a radio bearer
> or to avoid superfluous packet classification if it has been done on the
> packet's path beforehand
> already.
>
> IMO, for non-encapsulation
> Behcet,
>
> I was thinking if TEID is need then that can be encoded in a locator
> easily enough.
>
> Tom
Not if a locator is a PGW that is shared by many UEs.
3GPP wants per bearer awareness so they need a specific ID, that could have
been the UE’s IP address. And with IPv6 it can be uniqu
> Sridhar,
>
> Couldn't the TEID be encoded in the outer IP address of an
> encpasulation or network overlay in a similar way that VNIs are
> encoded in IP addresses in virtual networking?
>
> Tom
There are lots of ways to do it. The point is, was an additional 32 bits
necessary solely for this
Tom, Behcet, I think TEID may still be needed in some cases, e.g. for mapping
to a radio bearer
or to avoid superfluous packet classification if it has been done on the
packet's path beforehand
already.
IMO, for non-encapsulation protocols, overloading of id-loc space seems
interesting if the a
Sridhar,
> [SB] Lets say we only use UE IP address and no TEID. How will you identify
> the bearer context the packet belongs? One UE may use multiple radio bearers
> / QoS flows. DSCP in IPv4 and Flow Label in IPv6 is one option but these are
> IP level markings which could be changed by any o
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
>> wrote:
>> > My comments inline marked [SB]
>> >
>> >> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly
>>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
> wrote:
> > My comments inline marked [SB]
> >
> >> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly
> why a
> >> > >>> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. B
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
wrote:
> My comments inline marked [SB]
>
>> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
>> > >>> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
>> > >>> one-to-one mapping between tunnel and us
Dear Behcet,
>>What is PFCP, is it GTP-U?
PFCP is a control plane protocol used between control plane function and
user plane function. In EPC, the PFCP protocol is used on the Sx interface.
In 5G its used on the N4 interface. It is used to set up the packet
classifiers and forwarding rules in th
My comments inline marked [SB]
> >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
> one-to-one mapping between tunnel and user, why couldn’t the inner
> addresses be used for accounting?
> >
> > [Sridha
Thank you Hannu for your comments.
I found the word ‘anchor’ 18 times in the draft, and I agree with you that
those need to be clarified.
Best regards,
--satoru
> 2018/09/05 20:53、Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> のメール:
>
> Hello
>
> The draft SRv6-mobile-userplane seems to use the term
17 matches
Mail list logo
