Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> wrote: > ID-LOC (SRV6, ILA, LISP, ILNP) would cover these use cases easily > since UE ID re

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

[mailto:t...@quantonium.net] Sent: 27 March 2018 15:50 To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.a

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I realize there have been some discussions, but I think its time to reopen > those discussion in 6MAN or wherever and find a way-forward. There is a > strong use-case now for such capability. I am

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

For untrusted access (Ex: 3GPP access over untrusted Wi-Fi), protocols like IKEv2-IPsec/MIPv6-UDP (client based solutions) are possible candidates; I agree with Charlie on that. I realize there is work in progress in 5G specs on these interfaces, but I do not see many new options there. Sri

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

y Tom. >> >> -- >> Uma C. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM >> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> >> Cc: dmm@ietf.org

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: 27 March 2018 11:05 > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > <sgund...@cisco.c

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

regards, Arashmid -Original Message- From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net] Sent: 27 March 2018 15:02 To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 Hello Arashmid, > if a WiFi netw

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

ct: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> wrote: > Tom, > Are you referring to a use case where the UE moves between different access > technologies? > I think it's possible and should be a co

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Herbert Sent: 27 March 2018 11:05 To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Her

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

In-line.. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:23 AM To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@huawei.com> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meet

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima > <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thank you Tom, >> >> Unfortunatel

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

half Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > <sgund...@cisco.com

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

;satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Tom, > > Unfortunately I couldn’t find clear advantage of GUE against GTP-U. > (No

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" <t...@quantonium.net> wrote: > >>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "t

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" wrote: > >>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >>> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" >> > > I am really hoping

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" wrote: >> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without the need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:52 AM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > One thing I want to follow my comment. > >> Basic functionalities of GTP-U is that sequence number option, >> extension-headers, and multicast and those should be the part of criteria. >> IMO as you

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > Thank you Tom, > > Unfortunately I couldn’t find clear advantage of GUE against GTP-U. (No > offensive, please don’t get me wrong.) > > I couldn’t see GUE in NVO WG doc list. But I can see much more

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

One thing I want to follow my comment. > Basic functionalities of GTP-U is that sequence number option, > extension-headers, and multicast and those should be the part of criteria. > IMO as you suggested, overhead size, performance, TE, extensibility and > encryption would be good idea for the

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > Thank you Tom for your suggestion. > > Do you think that GUE has some advantages against GTP-U? I believe so. GUE is designed to be a general purposed multi use case encapsulation. The defined GUE extensions

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Thank you Tom for your suggestion. Do you think that GUE has some advantages against GTP-U? When it comes to foo over UDP capsulation, does GUE benefit user plane beyond GTP-U? Best regards, --satoru > 2018/03/27 9:16、Tom Herbert のメール: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:27

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > FYI. This is the notes that Carlos captured. Thank you Carlos!! > > We are also waiting for Lyle to share his notes. Please review and > comment, if you see any mistakes. > With regards to SR encapsulation:

[DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

FYI. This is the notes that Carlos captured. Thank you Carlos!! We are also waiting for Lyle to share his notes. Please review and comment, if you see any mistakes. Sri On 3/21/18, 7:14 AM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" wrote: >Hi Sri, > >Please find my notes attached (they