On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d ask the question another way: > > Would users like to set QoS bits that may charge them more for service? Could > they set bits to get cheaper service? > Hey, if I could set some bits and save a few bucks (legally) on my mobile phone bill each month that'd be great! How do I do that? ;-)
In lieu of those magic bits, what I'd settle for now as as a user is better, more transparent accounting and pay-per-use for service. I don't have a problem paying more to get better Internet service **if** it's clear I'm getting money's worth. For instance, for the past few months my home Internet provider is currently charging me for going over my data limits each month, but they can't give me any detailed break down of my Internet usage. They can't even tell me _how_ they're doing accounting since they've outsourced it to a third party company. Very irritating! And then, of course, there's the story of firefighters fighting wild fires in California and having their data rate throttled to 1/100th of the nominal rate even though they were on the "unlimited" data plan. Not just irritating, but this put lives at risk! Such problems can be fix with precise accounting and transparency on services and service plans. Tom > Let alone if the operator can deliver the service (in this > net-neutrality-less era). > > Dino > >> On Sep 6, 2018, at 3:15 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Arashmid Akhavain >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dino brought up a good point. Here is my two cents worth: >>> >>> As it was explained by Sridhar, each UE can have multiple contexts. For >>> example, today some operators provide Data and VoLTE service to their >>> customers. These two services are represented by separate GTP tunnels in >>> the core with each tunnel tied up to a particular QoS. >>> >>> IPv4 didn't fit the bill when GTP work was under way as it couldn't >>> uniquely identify multiple UE sessions/context/bearer. So, GTP and TEID did >>> the job. But I agree with Dino that IPv6 is much more versatile and is >>> definitely worth looking at as an alternative. >>> >>> A factor worth considering though is that the use of GTP and TEID in mobile >>> core allows operators to deal with QoS on their own terms. The tunnels with >>> specific operator-controlled QoS are established by the control plane >>> between eNB, SGW, and PGW. UEs or applications sitting in the UEs have no >>> say in this. Well at least till the packet exits operator's network. >>> >>> Using the information in UE's IP packet header can jeopardise the above >>> tight QoS control. I think going down this path, operators need proof that >>> they will be still in the driving seat and QoS cannot be dictated/tampered >>> by the UE or any application running in it. >>> >>> Now, here is an interesting question for the operators. Would any operator >>> be interested in allowing QoS to be set by the UE or by applications >>> running in the UE and charged for by the network? "Yes" could potentially >>> imply impacts on the air interface, UE resource block allocation and can >>> make scheduling on the RAN side much more complex. >>> >> >> Hi Arashmid, >> >> I might pose the question a bit differently: Do operators want to >> offer a rich set of services, e.g. QoS, and allow applications request >> what services they want applied for their packets? I believe the >> answer to that should be "yes" since it allows operators the chance >> offer and monetize services that can benefit users. That is the easier >> question to ask. The harder one is _how_ to do this in a secure, >> generic, net neutrality compliant, practical, and fair manner that >> doesn't require users to divulge the details of their content to the >> provider or the whole Internet. Firewall and Service Tickets is being >> proposed as one such mechanism to solve this (see >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-fast). >> >> Tom >> >>> Arashmid >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci >>>> Sent: 06 September 2018 12:45 >>>> To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected]; dmm <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: 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 unique and not the issue >>>> that Sridhar brought up. >>>> >>>> If ILA was in use, just use the ILA-ID for this purpose. >>>> >>>> Dino >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
