Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

That sounds like you want to do IPv4 over IPv6. Do you think carriers will build an IPv6-only NGC at this point in time? Dino > On Mar 20, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Satoru Matsushima > wrote: > > Next header type maybe? > Interestingly GTP-U doesn’t have it. > > Sent

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

Next header type maybe? Interestingly GTP-U doesn’t have it. Sent from my iPhone 2018/03/20 18:17、Dino Farinacci のメール: > How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft. > > Dino > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima >>

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft. Dino > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima > wrote: > > Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort. > > Sent from my iPhone > > 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: >

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

BTW 5G Rel-15 doesn’t support IPv4v6 type session. But Docomo is trying to get back v4v6 to the updated Rel-15 stage 2 spec. I don’t know why. > 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: > > I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is > there a

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort. Sent from my iPhone 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: > I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is > there a requirement to support IPv4 mobile or dual stack? > > Lyle

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is there a requirement to support IPv4 mobile or dual stack? Lyle ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

[DMM] New version to draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility - 14

Hi, I update the draft with some minor editorial fixes, mainly to the pseudo code part. These are mainly breaking long lines so that they do not exceed the 72nd column. You can continue addressing draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-13 for WGLC review - there are no other modifications. Thanks

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

I agree with Sri. However the aim is to have the WG to reference this draft as part of the response back to 3GPP. Different contenders are welcomed to participate and provide analysis and comparsion. Arashmid From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent:

Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]

Thanks authors, Actually this draft sounds interesting for me. Some points for that are following: 1. Utilizing existing control plane for distributed mobility functions. 2. Those mobility functions could be programmed through some interface, i.e: FPC 3. I’d see some similarity with MFA ideas.

Re: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay methods

Hi Tom, Inline. Cheers, Pablo. From: Tom Herbert Date: Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 16:28 To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" Cc: dmm , Uma Chunduri Subject: Re: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

My questions are if must describe these concepts in a training class to a group of network operations personnel: 1. What term would the conversation devolve to? 2. What would one say to distinguish it from NAT in a manner that is acceptable to the trainees in the class (you've answered that Tom)?

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > Not sure I agree Behcet. Generally, the distributed mobility management > charter does cover optimizations in user-plane and control plane. But, for > now, lets not discuss if this is in scope for this WG,

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > > [KB] I will let Sri answer this. > > Nothing specific to MFA draft, but I will make a general comment. > > > If there is consensus to adopt draft-bogineni as a WG document, and if > this work becomes

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

What about naming it nicely locator re-writing? Which is what it does and community reacts differently on certain terms such as NAT.. marco -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40 To: Tom

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed IPv6 deployments out by 20 years. Sri On 3/20/18, 4:37 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" wrote: >Tom: > >> ILA is not NAT! :-) > >As seen from the end

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

Tom: > ILA is not NAT! :-) As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function that is needed at two places where you do translation of the addresses from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NAT function, and you have a mapping state similar to NAT state. That¹s a NAT

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

Kalyani, Thanks so much. Lyle On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Bogineni, Kalyani < kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> wrote: > Lyle: > > > > Thank you for your comments. The document is still work-in-progress. The > future revisions will address your comments. > > > > > > *From:* dmm

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Lyle Bertz wrote: > We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would ask > a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed in > previous e-mails: > > 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

> [KB] I will let Sri answer this. Nothing specific to MFA draft, but I will make a general comment. If there is consensus to adopt draft-bogineni as a WG document, and if this work becomes part of the WG charter, I would think the document should include all IETF proposals under discussion

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

Lyle: Thank you for your comments. The document is still work-in-progress. The future revisions will address your comments. From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Bertz Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 6:57 AM To: dmm Subject: [E] Re: [DMM]

Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would ask a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed in previous e-mails: 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF. However, Figures 16 & 17 do. It is a bit confusing. Are

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-14.txt

Authors: This draft is under WGLC. We were not expecting you guys to post an update during LC period. Please let the WG know about the changes in version -18. WG: Please post WGLC comments on version 13 and not on -14. Thanks Sri On 3/19/18, 7:21 AM, "dmm on behalf of