Hi Tom and Dino, Yes, I agree that these are the type of services that operator might want to look into to extend their revenue. Tom put it nicely: "it allows operators the chance to offer and monetize services that can benefit users".
I doubt that operators would like to allow dynamic QoS control to shift to UEs. But I think a mechanism that would allow QoS request to sit on the UE and the control to be done at the operator side would work well. This is value that the slicing concept in 5G brings to the table. It allows the operators to setup preconfigured slices with different QoS, delay, jitter, etc behaviour. UE flows then will be mapped to appropriate 5G slice. The complexity of the scheduler on the RAN side is a different story. But certainly use of the slicing concept makes the scheduler job less complicated. Arashmid > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 06 September 2018 19:01 > To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > Cc: Arashmid Akhavain <[email protected]>; ta- > [email protected]; dmm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01 > > 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? > > 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
