[DMM] Comment on draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models

Hi Charlie, Thanks for your comments on our update of the I-D. You commented and suggested that 5G functions in TS 23.501 need to be mapped with the CPA/CPN, DPA/DPN introduced in our I-D. I know you have additional suggestions. Will you specifically mention, please? Regards, Seil

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 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

[DMM] Call for adoption of draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01 as DMM WG document

Folks: During IETF 99 and IETF 100 we polled the room for their interest in taking up draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif- as a DMM working group document. In both those occasions there was good amount of support for taking up this work.. The chairs would like to confirm the same over the mailing

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

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 not convinced that we cannot find a work around. May be its about documentation on the potential

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

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

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 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 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] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > Tom: > > I am not against the use of the term “transformation” in ILA function > naming, but honestly I do not understand the difference. I have not seen > any documentation for such interpretation as you

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

Tom: I am not against the use of the term “transformation” in ILA function naming, but honestly I do not understand the difference. I have not seen any documentation for such interpretation as you explained below. I have looked at RFC 2663 and other specs, but I did find any such text. Lets look

[DMM] FPC - Changes to ServiceGroup (dropping ServiceEndpoint)

This is the last change for FPC and was mentioned last week. This is the Background, Motivation & Summary. As discussed, we will focus on examples, editing and NMDA. Comments are appreciated. FPC Authors BACKGROUND The selection of a DPN, User Plane Function or even Diameter applications is

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

Hi Sri, > > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without the > need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile environments within a > closed administrative domains, there should be exceptions for allowing > insertion of SRH by a

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

Tom, Are you referring to a use case where the UE moves between different access technologies? Arashmid > IMO Unified concept in that encapsulation doesn’t seem to work i.n that > circumstance. When it comes to WiFi case, IETF has CAPWAP as the user plane > protocol which is also a

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without > the > > need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile environments within a > > closed

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 Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On

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

Although segment end points are nodes along packets' delivery path, they are terminating a segment. So why is it considered a RFC8200 violation if SRH manipulation is restricted to those nodes. Arashmid -Original Message- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Arashmid Akhavain 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 consideration. Countless devices are already regularly multihomed

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

ID-LOC (SRV6, ILA, LISP, ILNP) would cover these use cases easily since UE ID remains the same no matter what access technology we use. Without ID-LOC, there is always going to be a need for all sort of complicated control plane hand over procedures. Also, we end up with n2 interworking issue

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

Hi Charlie, Mobile IPV6 can be among the alternatives. But mobility is just one the important features in 3GPP. There are several aspects such as impact on CP, support for service chaining, traffic engineering, QoS and BW reservation, etc. that perhaps require further investigation. Best

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Arashmid Akhavain wrote: > Although segment end points are nodes along packets' delivery path, they are > terminating a segment. > So why is it considered a RFC8200 violation if SRH manipulation is restricted > to those nodes. > Hi