On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Lyle Bertz <[email protected]> wrote: > We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would ask > a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed in > previous e-mails: > > 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF. > However, Figures 16 & 17 do. It is a bit confusing. Are 14 & 15 incorrect > or is an option to skip the SMF? If correct, how does one do any policy in > those figures? > > 2. ILA appears to be super NAT'g (more than 1 NAT) but it is unclear how > policy works. I am not sure that in its current state the proposed ILA > design addresses in Section 3. Although it is noted that not all functions > are supported at a specific UPF it is unclear that policy, lawful intercept, > etc.. is supported at all. Will this be section be updated? > Hi Lyle,
ILA is not NAT! :-) It is an address transformation process that is always undone before the packet is received so that receiver sees original packet. In this manner ILA is really just an efficient mechanism of creating network overlays. In this manner additional functionality (policy, lawful intercept, etc.) can be higher layers independent of the actual overlay mechanism. Tom > 3. Will a feature support comparison be made for each solution with the UPF > functions to ensure coverage? > > 4. Will MFA be proposed as an option ( > > draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00 > > )? > > Thanks! > > Lyle > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
