I joined this mailing list recently so I’m not familiar with the full history
of this draft. Sorry for SPAM in case this has been discussed earlier.
I noticed few fundamental issues with “ANUP”:
* Mobility management and session management are fundamentally 2 different
functions and must not (cannot) be merged
* Most mobile use-cases require mobility across eNB/gNB. Even FWA has
inherent requirements for mobility due to fallback or interrupted LoS with
mmWave. Same with private wireless as it requires X2 or S1 handovers. LIPA is
no exception – see below.
* Session management is anchored permanently with 4G. 5G allows session
mobility but not widely used/deployed.
* Even if LIPA PDN is enabled on a UE (e.g for local IP access at home or
office), rest of the PDNs require mobility (walking away from home eNB) so
merging mobility management and session management is not feasible.
* LIPA PDN requires SGW function to be done in the MNO core. There is no
way to do “local” processing between HeNB and LGW
* MNO has to control paging (otherwise major security risk) to activate
radio link from HeNB so the user plane function does a hair-pin to SGW and
returns to LGW
* Same with 5GC with I-SMF/I-UPF activated
* LIPA didn’t become a reality due to limited use-case (local IP access
only). No major benefit due to widespread use of WiFi access.
* Major security issue for service providers. No monetary gain to
provide such a service
“ANUP” can be considered as a product architecture where HeNB (serving
Internet, voice, + LIPA) and LGW-U/UPF (LIPA only) are collocated but are 2
independent functions.
PGW-U/UPF functions for Internet and voice will always reside in MNO network so
HeNB will handover to eNB/gNB as soon as UE walks away from HeNB.
Unless the focus is on a very specific case of single PDN with no mobility
(“private MEC” or “satellite to satellite” only), it seems ANUP like function
is unnecessary at this point and crossing over into 3GPP territory. Proposing
to merge N1/N2 and N4 signaling will be an overkill to solve a very niche
use-case.
Sandeep
From: dmm <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Lake
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 12:50 AM
To: Miya Kohno <[email protected]>; Satoru Matsushima
<[email protected]>
Cc: dmm <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (2) for "Mobile User Plane Evolution" -
draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Miya
“ANUP solely addresses user plane convergence and tries to liaise with 3GPP,
but I'm afraid this is a half-baked attempt.”
Absolutely agree and there are many aspects of the current 3GPP design which
are not very ‘IETF-like’ that we should be considering (removal of IMS and
total separation of the voice/text service from the transport network would be
the first item I’d consider – then move onto the use of tunnels, then look at
authentication, then at a truly global-mobile solution… etc.)
So this draft is good but I agree it only really addresses the ‘here-and-now’
and we have much in the control plane that needs reworking.
What I think we need in IETF (and it is not in a chartered group such as DMM –
that scope is known) is a study of the current ‘mobile’ infrastructure with
reference to how today’s consumers are using it predominantly for Internet
access (a good thing for IETF and that includes voice and text which is mostly
OTT now) and whether the current economic and architectural models fit that use
case.
Where I struggle is that is probably not an IETF WG or IRTF RG.
David
From: dmm <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Miya
Kohno <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2023 at 02:02
To: Satoru Matsushima
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: dmm <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (2) for "Mobile User Plane Evolution" -
draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06
Hello,
Though this draft is mostly agreeable, drastic improvement also requires the
control plane work.
In fact, RAN Core convergence has already been discussed.
e.g.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10073488
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10001281
ANUP solely addresses user plane convergence and tries to liaise with 3GPP, but
I'm afraid this is a half-baked attempt.
The MUP[*] assumes no change to 5GC, and I think IETF DMM should focus on this
at least for the time being.
Architecture:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-architecture-05.html
Motivation: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kohno-dmm-srv6mob-arch-07.html
Cheers,
Miya
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:42 PM Satoru Matsushima
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear DMMers,
This email starts a two-weeks DMM WG adoption poll (2) for ""Mobile User Plane
Evolution" - draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution/
Please review the draft and post any comments on this mail thread prior to
Friday, November 3rd, 2023.
Regards,
Sri, Satoru
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
