Hi Pablo,
5.2.2. Packet flow - Downlink
The downlink packet flow is as follows:
UPF2_in : (Z,A) ->UPF2 maps the flow w/
SID list <C1,S1, gNB>
UPF2_out: (U2::1, C1)(gNB, S1; SL=2)(Z,A) ->H.Encaps.Red
C1_out : (U2::1, S1)(gNB, S1; SL=1)(Z,A)
S1_out : (U2::1, gNB)(Z,A) ->End with PSP
gNB_out : (Z,A) ->End.DX4/End.DX6/End.DX2
...
Once the packet arrives at the gNB, the IPv6 DA corresponds to an
End.DX4, End.DX6 or End.DX2 behavior at the gNB (depending on the
underlying traffic).
Because of the END.DX2/4/6 behavior on gNB, the SID list and S1_out can't just
simply use gNB. It must be gNB:TEID.
In 5.3, for uplink traffic, the GW has End.M.GTP6.D for the UPF address B and
the gNB does not need to know the existence of GW. For downlink traffic, the
UPF knows there is a GW and put the GW::TEID in the SRH. Why not make GW
invisible to UPF as well and just use gNB::TEID, and then have gNB/96 as
End.M.GTP6.E on the SRGW? You can still put GW in the SRH to steer traffic
through the GW.
5.3.1.1. Packet flow - Uplink
The uplink packet flow is as follows:
UE_out : (A,Z)
gNB_out : (gNB, B)(GTP: TEID T)(A,Z) -> Interface N3 unmodified
(IPv6/GTP)
SRGW_out: (SRGW, S1)(U2::1, C1; SL=2)(A,Z) -> B is an End.M.GTP6.D
SID at the SRGW
S1_out : (SRGW, C1)(U2::1, C1; SL=1)(A,Z)
C1_out : (SRGW, U2::1)(A,Z) -> End with PSP
UPF2_out: (A,Z) -> End.DT4 or End.DT6
Shouldn't U2::1 be U2::TEID? Even for the enhanced mode, TEID is still signaled
and used - just that multiple UEs will share the same TEID.
BTW, since you removed UPF1 in Figure 5, it's better to rename UPF2 to UPF1,
and change U2 to U1.
For 5.3.1.3, why is downlink considered stateless while uplink has some state?
Aren't the same - just one converts GTP-U to SRv6 while the other does the
opposite?
5.3.2.1 has the following:
When the packet arrives at the SRGW for UPF1, the SRGW has an Uplink
Classifier rule for incoming traffic from the gNB, that steers the
traffic into an SR policy by using the function H.M.GTP4.D.
The SRGW is not a 5G NF, so the "Uplink Classifier rule" does not have to be
the following (draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence):
Uplink Classifier (ULCL):
An ULCL is an UPF functionality that aims at diverting Uplink traffic,
based on filter rules provided by SMF, towards Data Network (DN).
So, instead of ULCL, the SRGW could have an IPv4 route for the UPF address
which steers the matching traffic to an SR policy with function H.M.GTP4.D. If
that is done, then the following is not true:
For the uplink traffic, the state at the SRGW is dedicated on a per
UE/session basis according to an Uplink Classifier. There is state
for steering the different sessions in the form of an SR Policy.
However, SR policies are shared among several UE/sessions.
Because we don't need per UE/session steering - we can just steer based on
UPF's address (just like in IPv6 case). It seems that the only reason ULCL is
used here is just that we don't call an IPv4 address a SID - but that does not
mean we can't use an IPv4 route to steer traffic into a policy (isn't it the
same thing that we use an IPv6 route for an address that we call SID)?
5.3.3. Extensions to the interworking mechanisms
In this section we presented two mechanisms for interworking with
gNBs and UPFs that do not support SRv6. These mechanisms are used to
support GTP over IPv4 and IPv6.
Only gNB, not UPF, right?
Furthermore, although these mechanisms are designed for interworking
with legacy RAN at the N3 interface, these methods could also be
applied for interworking with a non-SRv6 capable UPF at the N9
interface.
Are you referring to the following?
gNB (GTP-U) -- SRGW1 ----- UPF1 ------- SRGW2 ----- (GTP-U) UPF2
What's the difference between SRGW1 and SRGw2? If there is, then the above
paragraph is incorrect.
If there is no difference, why do we need drop-in mode (which has difference
between SRGW-A and SRGW-B)?
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
