Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

Note that I presented LISP to CT4 in August. They were kind enough to give me a slot without a WI being ready. They asked me to provide a proposal about how a IETF control-plane (specifically LISP) could be used to help manage the AMF, SMF, PCF, AUSF, and UDM functions. They were intrigue

[DMM] Support for draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis

I support making this draft a WG document. Cheers, Dino ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

r improvement. SIDs might present an opportunity. Not if they are encapsulated and routers don’t touch packets inside. Dino > > > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 07 September 2018 13:08 >> To: Arash

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

slices. I should look into the air side of > the business and see what happens there. > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net] >> Sent: 07 September 2018 11:13 >> To: Arashmid Akhavain >> Cc: Dino Farinac

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

> 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

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

> 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

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

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

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

> Dear Dino, > > Some clarifications on your comments I am going to use general terms here so we don’t get hung up in IETF and/or 3GPP terminology. Which doesn’t make things clear to anyone really. So we can stay on point. > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

If you want it to be direct, specific, and self documenting, I’d suggest “Address Replacement Function”. Then verbalize it by saying casually “ARFing the packet”. Dino > On Mar 23, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Sri Gundavelli

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

’t have it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > 2018/03/20 18:17、Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>のメール: > >> How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft. >> >> Dino >> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft. Dino > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima > wrote: > > Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort. > > Sent from my iPhone > > 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: >

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01.txt

> 2. For traditional mode (basic mode), could you please elaborate on the MTU > overhead being less than GTPU? GTPU encap MTU overhead = 20 octets outer IPv4 > header + 8 octets UDP header + 12 octets GTPU header + Extension header for > QFI. SRv6 encap MTU overhead = 40 octets IPv6 header + EH

Re: [DMM] IETF101 - Call for agenda items

Some more info. > Topic Name: LISP > Presenter: Dino Farinacci > Time: 20 minutes > Draft Reference: TBP ??? Topic Name: LISP for the Mobile Network Draft Reference: draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-01/02 Dino ___ dmm mail

Re: [DMM] [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> AERO uses IPv6 Neighbor Discovery as its control-plane. Surely that is the > most mature? Yes when used in a layer-2 subnet. Uses in a wider scope it has NHRP properties. If you remember we had something called LISP-EMACS (thanks John Curran) which we “ARPed a Map-Request over a layer 3

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

e and what ILSR4 is (is it a variant of > N4/Sx - PFCP in 29.244). > > Kalyani > > -Original Message- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 9:44 PM > To: Bogineni, Kalyani <kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> With any of the IETF protocols, PMIPv6/LISP/ILA, it can be argued that > these are IP packets. But, we should note that there is interworking > needed with the 3GPP authentication infrastructure, and the protocol > specific control plane. Note that these protocols are not doing MN > identity

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

g on the access technology. The UPF sends IP packets. The UPF is part of the NGC core, right? So the packets from the UPF get to a map-resolver and map-server via IP. It’s pretty simple. At least it should be. Dino > > Sri > > > > On 2/5/18, 6:42 PM, "Dino Farinacci"

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

.503 specifies the policy >> and charging control framework for NGC. >> CT4 has a technical report on protocol aspects for NGC in TR 29.891. >> >> Your draft needs to describe how it fits in the 5G architecture, right >> now it only addresses 4G. >> >> Kalyan

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Bogineni, Kalyani > wrote: > > Dino: > > Can you add a section to show how this proposal would fit in 5G architecture? Can you be more specific in what you’d like to see in the new section? There are references throughout

Re: [DMM] [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

w. > > > Regards > Sri > > On 2/1/18, 2:59 PM, "Dino Farinacci" <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> ILA is one of the proposals on the table. This is not an adoption call >>> at >>> this time, but asking the WG to review and o

Re: [DMM] [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> ILA is one of the proposals on the table. This is not an adoption call at > this time, but asking the WG to review and open up some discussions that > will help IETF understand the problem/solutions, and pick the right > solution(s) for this problem statement. If there is interest and if the >