On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 1:58 PM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zahed, > > please see inline: > > On 08/06/2023 12:42, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:36 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Zahed, > > > > please see inline: > > > > On 08/06/2023 07:00, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker wrote: > > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-13: No Objection > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > > cut this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > > > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > < > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > > > > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT > > positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > here: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Thanks for working on this specification. > > > > > > I have no comment from TSV point of view. However, the > > description in section 3 > > > is a not clear to me. It references 5G system and N3 interfaces > > then describes > > > the need for UPF selection based on some sort of session needs. > > However, I > > > could not relate how IP addresses plays role in that selection > > and where in 5G > > > system this is done or planned to be done based of IP addresses? > > is there any > > > deployment case or already deployed UPF selection based on just > > IP addresses? > > > > yes. The real field example is where the mobile site accepts both > data > > and voice traffic. Voice traffic is sent from mobile site to the > voice > > gateway that has its own unique address. That traffic needs low > latency > > paths. Rest of the data traffic is routed to its destination using > best > > effort path. > > > > > > Here, I think you are talking about the QoS framework that 3GPP has , > > and it also involves radio bearer, radio schedulers and more. > > we are not claiming it's 5G specific. We are using 5G as an example - > the section name has "Example" in it. We picked the 5G example because > that is one of the real field deployments, where IP Flex-algo is used. > > In the context of this draft, we focus on IP, radio portion is unchanged. > OK then lets make that clear in the specification, even if this is an example. > > > The IP > > address only could be one part of it. > > certainly, but that is the part relevant to this draft. > > > It is not the case that if you > > have certain IP address your traffic would get the extra treatment it > > wants. > > no, but with IP flex-algo, we can make it that way. > Also make is clear that it is the intention or a potential case. Obviously if it is the main intention then it need to be clearly written. > > > The bearer concept is not new to 5G system and applicable to 4G > > system as well. The current text I think is very shy on explaining the > > concept and relating it to IP address. > > All we say is that if the specific traffic/service can be identified by > the IP address, traffic to it can use constrained based paths using IP > algo. > That was not so obvious to me. Again, if we clarify it then it will be very helpful. //Zahed
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
