Comments inline.

-----Original Message-----
From: Satoru Matsushima [] 
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:25 AM
To: Bogineni, Kalyani <>
Cc:; dmm <>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] 

Hello Kalyani,

> When you see UPF specifically it should be controlled by SMF through N4, they 
> are not the UPFs.
> But you might see them as UPFs if a SMF doesn’t control them directly but the 
> SMF can put the sessions to it through some other means.
> 3GPP SA2 has studied on that case (ETSUN). We consider how SMF deal with that 
> case and SRv6 may help to solve the issues to it in simpler way.
> Please let me know if you are interested in.
> [KB] is there a TR for ETSUN that I can read?

You can read it later on this September. See
[KB] Thank you

> [KB] I think your document needs to separate out 3 architectures: one for 4G 
> - SGW/PGW; one for 4G - CUPS; and one for 5G - UPF.

If you mean SRv6 Mobile Uplane draft, it is already a WG document, not my 
draft. So I’d collect opinions on this from WG. I’m sorry for that.
As a co-author of the draft, I’m afraid I disagree. SRv6 Mobile Uplane draft 
specifies SRv6 functions for mobile user plane, which should be architecture 

[KB] Sections 7.2, 7.3 refer to 3GPP terminology like eNB, SGW, PGW. My comment 
was suggesting that you include 5G terminology and CUPS terminology 
as well so it is clear how your proposal can be used in various scenarios.

> [KB] I am also still not clear if the blue icons (which I think represent 
> IP/MPLS nodes) in your slides are included in SRv6 architecture or not.

I put some text what those icons indicate. Please find them in the slides. The 
blue icons represent IPv6 or SRv6 node.
[KB] Seems like the IPv6/SRv6 nodes do not interact with SMF. Is that the 


dmm mailing list

Reply via email to