>Let me think just an example, if a SMF sees an IPv6 address as an UPF 
address, is actually an IPv6 segment ID of a TE path through several IPv6 
routers and links, a southbound could be PCEP but not limited. 
                >BGP-LS should work to disseminate that segment and FPC may 
work to disclose it to the SMF and the TE path would be attached mobility 
sessions by the SMF as if it is an UPF. 

I see what you are saying; this is after N3 termination and full charging, LI 
and bit rate enforcement is done and to move the packet on the provided TE path 
to the UPF on N9. 
My original question was more on SFC functionalities that ought to be done on 
N6 (I know the draft you pointed 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00 and I 
still see that as alternative to NSH) and any of these have to be done on N9. 
The only thing I see is TE on N9.
I think, there is no bearing on SMF for Gi LAN stuff on N6.

Uma C.

dmm mailing list

Reply via email to