Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Tom: Thanks! That sounds like some interesting trick. But, let me make sure I understood this correctly. So, the identifier space for the MN is encoded in the upper 64-bits. Now, the UE can use those bits to generate any Identifier from that space, and use it with the SIR prefix to form the

Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >>> Section 8.3 provides the argument that singleton addresses are needed >>> for privacy-sensitive communications. For practicality and probably

Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > But, with ILA there is no concept of prefix assignment. Will ILA network >> now generate a identifier block for each MN? Is DHCPv6 the only approach? >> >> Sri, see section 6.3.2. That describes encoding the identifier in

Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a /64 > prefix. But, how does that work with ILA's approach of identifier management? With the previously IETF recommended approaches in RFC5213 and even in 3GPP architecture, per RFC3315, the network assigned a set of

[DMM] Topology definition in the current FPC draft

Hello folks, When I think of a network topology, I think of the nodes in the network and the links between them.  Right now in the FPC document, the definition of topology does not easily admit that interpretation. I would like to modify the top-level Topology definition to be a set of

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> With any of the IETF protocols, PMIPv6/LISP/ILA, it can be argued that > these are IP packets. But, we should note that there is interworking > needed with the 3GPP authentication infrastructure, and the protocol > specific control plane. Note that these protocols are not doing MN > identity

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> The UPF sends IP packets. The UPF is part of the NGC core, right? So the >packets from the UPF get to a map-resolver and map-server via IP. It’s >pretty simple. At least it should be. Sure, that LISP control plane packet is an IP packet. But, every message that is going between CP and UP will

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> Sure, but I assume the mapping table/DB is some where else in some central > location and not on the UPF? True. > The question is how does the UPF fetch that entry and if the interface for > that query is built on some 3GPP interface, or its internal to LISP with > no bearing on the access

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Sure, but I assume the mapping table/DB is some where else in some central location and not on the UPF? The question is how does the UPF fetch that entry and if the interface for that query is built on some 3GPP interface, or its internal to LISP with no bearing on the access technology. Sri

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

I don’t know what you mean. If you put the xTR function on an UPF, then by LISP spec definition, Map-Request, Map-Reply, and Map-Register functionality is part of the UPF. Dino > On Feb 5, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > wrote: > > I suspect there might be

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

I suspect there might be a need for a new interface. Assuming the LISP mapping system stays in the control plane, next to SMF/AMF, and the xTR functions on the UPF, there needs to be probably a new interface along the lines of the N4, for managing the LISP MAP operations (Reg/Req/Reply/Notify..).

Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Dino: Please look at 3GPP TS 23.501 to understand the architecture of NGC. We tried to explain that in the White paper. TS 23.502 has the procedures for the NGC. TS 23.503 specifies the policy and charging control framework for NGC. CT4 has a technical report on protocol aspects for NGC in TR

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Bogineni, Kalyani > wrote: > > Dino: > > Can you add a section to show how this proposal would fit in 5G architecture? Can you be more specific in what you’d like to see in the new section? There are references throughout

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Dino: Can you add a section to show how this proposal would fit in 5G architecture? Kalyani -Original Message- From: ila [mailto:ila-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 6:34 PM To: Dino Farinacci Cc:

Re: [DMM] [E] Re: [Ila] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt

Fred: Can you add a section to show how this proposal will work in 5G architecture? Kalyani -Original Message- From: ila [mailto:ila-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 11:00 AM To: Templin, Fred L ; Dino