Re: [DMM] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt

Hello Kalyani, Thank you for your feedbacks. I’ll take it into account. And yes, slide 6 shows just one deployment scenario. A spreadsheet which I shared in my google drive would help to see the rest of scenarios. Perhaps those would be deployed on somewhere in operators. Cheers, --satoru >

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

Marco: Response Inline From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 5:10 PM To: Bogineni, Kalyani Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; Dino Farinacci ; i...@ietf.org; dmm

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

Hi Kalyani, my current take is to keep the data plane independent of a specific mapping base. Even if it comes with an extended control plane per the two options that you draw, I personally don’t think that SMF and UPF/Data Plane should communicate through the service-based architecture.

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

Marco, Sri: Here is the services based 5G architecture. [cid:image001.png@01D39F65.E35E55C0] SMF is a control plane entity and talks to the User plane functions (UPF) through N4 interface as specified in 3GPP TS 29.244. Here are two variants: Option 1: Mapping DB talks to the UPFs

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

HI Sri, On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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 >

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

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:16 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > 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

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

It could be a nice option to keep the data plane specific control (the mapping DB you refer to) in the user plane and take a common N4 to update the mapping DB in case of mobility. But I think that clashes with the clear data plane / control plane separation in nextgen. And: there may be data

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

The other authors can comment but to me ILSR and LISP are the same thing. ILSR is an architecture that can use the LISP protocol set. Dino > On Feb 6, 2018, at 10:03 PM, Bogineni, Kalyani > wrote: > > Dino: > > This paper does describe the

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

Dino: This paper does describe the architecture. This information in a section would help and also explain what is different between LISP and ILSR. Figure 3 shows SMF for ILSR, AMF+, Nsmf+, Namf+, and ILSR4. You can explain what the '+' means and what the new functionalities in SMF for ILSR are