Hi,
I support the publication of this document.
I have P4 implementation of SRv6 Mobile Uplane based on earlier draft which was
used during several hackathon and POC, and planning to extend it once this is
published.
--
Kentaro Ebisawa | Mainling List: | Work:
On 2021/04/08 2:35, Sri
d.M.GTP4.E might not
be instantiated on the same SRGW. e.g. for scaling purpose)
If End.M.GTP4.E is also instantiated on the SR gateway, the Source UPF
Prefix of B' SHOULD be SRGW-IPv6-LOC-FUNC of End.M.GTP4.E SID
instantiated on the SR gateway.
Just my two cents.
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
On Mon, Ju
v4 SA of the
receiving packet.
0 127
+--++--+
| Source UPF Prefix|IPv4 SA | any bit pattern(ignored) |
+--++--+
128-a-b
ook up the IPv6 DA in the mapping table
> 2. update the IPv6 DA with the new mapped SID ;; Note 1
> 3. IF segment_list > 1
> 4. insert a new SRH
> 5. forward according to the new mapped SID
> 6. ELSE
> 7. Drop the packet
> Note 1:
e issue using 32 bit PREFIX
for GTP/SRv6 translation.
But there might be cases when we want to use PREFIX longer than 32 bits.
For example, if network is operated by smaller organization like MVNO,
Private LTE.
Have you ever considered it?
I have some idea if others think it's worth
other drafts like
draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane which is our working group document.
Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
Principal Researcher | Toyota InfoTechnology Center Co., Ltd.
-- Original Message --
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
To: "dmm@ietf.org"
Cc:
v4/GTP decapsulation and map to an SRv6 policy"
function (T.M.GTP4map for short) is used in the direction from legacy
IPv4/GTP user-plane to SRv6 user-plane network.
Comments?
Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
extension headers
5.push UDP/GTP headers with tunnel ID from S
6.push outer IPv4 header with SA, DA from S
7. ELSE
8.Drop the packet
Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
in network nodes.
Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
to describe it.
In such case, maybe using B2 in both cases is part of confusion.
Using A2::B2' instead might help to clarify B2 in A2::B2 (L3=>L2) and B2
(L2=>stateless interworking function) is different.
Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa @ Ponto Networks, Inc.
Work: | Mailing Lists:
-
outer
reply ICMP, it would be destined to MN or End Point on public internet.
Since ICMP payload would have SRH which includes mobile network's
information, I was not sure if this is accepted for all operators.
3. It might be more clear to mention is a SID list where S1
i
I support the adoption of this draft.
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
CTO | Ponto Networks, Inc.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Folks:
>
> The following message commences a two week call for opinions on the
> adoption of draft
rwork" differes for UL and DL. (as mentioned in the
draft)
Regards,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa
-- Original Message --
From: "Satoru Matsushima"
To: "Kentaro Ebisawa"
Cc: "dmm" ; spr...@ietf.org; "Matsushima Satoru"
Sent: 2017/08/29 10:44:16
Subject
(encap/insert, User Packet = IPv4/IPv6) will help this makes more easier
to understand.
Thanks,
--
Ponto Networks, Inc.
Kentaro Ebisawa
------ Original Message --
From: "Kentaro Ebisawa"
To: dmm@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org
Cc: "Matsushima Satoru"
Sent: 2017/08/28 23:52:
SID
SL[m+1] = Segment m+1
SL[n] = Segment n
Regards,
--
Ponto Networks, Inc.
Kentaro Ebisawa
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
15 matches
Mail list logo
