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

> AERO uses IPv6 Neighbor Discovery as its control-plane. Surely that is the > most mature? Yes when used in a layer-2 subnet. Uses in a wider scope it has NHRP properties. If you remember we had something called LISP-EMACS (thanks John Curran) which we “ARPed a Map-Request over a layer 3

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

Hi Dino, > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 3:38 PM > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm > Subject: Re: [DMM] [Ila] Fwd: New Version

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

Hi Sri, AERO needs also be mentioned as a tunneling option. Thanks - Fred From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 9:50 AM To: sarik...@ieee.org Cc: dmm ; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: Fwd:

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

Kalyani – Sure. Riding on N4 variant for mapping/SRv6 policy lookup etc is fine and can work for N9. But, if N3 is not touched, the UPF will be a complex entity with GTP towards one end and XYZ towards other side. But, I understand the scope is only N9 study. Sri From: "Bogineni, Kalyani"

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

Sri: The white paper should bring out the impacts to the system (N3, etc) when we compare the different proposals. Kalyani From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 12:23 PM To: Bogineni, Kalyani ; Marco

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

Hi. I'm new to the thread and have been monitoring it for a couple of weeks now. I have a question regarding 5G SSC (Session & Service Continuity) and its intersection with LISP/ILA/MIP/etc. One of the SSC modes (mode 3) for 5G is make-before-break on the PDU session. This implies that

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

+1 These are more or less different implementations of the same data path architecture/design. The mandate from 3GPP however is to investigate new data path options (emphasis on the "S") for N9, not to study SRV6 for N9. Arashmid From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri

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

> Again, I think it would be more productive to work on the main subject, i.e. > SRv6 user plane proposal by Matsushima. Behcet – Yes, that’s already in charter. We are only comparing various approaches for the other paper. Sri From: Behcet Sarikaya

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

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > They all look the same, Behcet :-) > > You tunnel, it becomes LISP; when you translate it becomes ILA; When you > call that mapping table a binding table, and keep it one place, it becomes > Mobile IPv6. >

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

They all look the same, Behcet :-) You tunnel, it becomes LISP; when you translate it becomes ILA; When you call that mapping table a binding table, and keep it one place, it becomes Mobile IPv6. When you move that table to some cloud and push it/fetch/flood it, they all converge :-) Sri

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

Hi Sri, On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Kalyani, > > For all the approaches that we are talking (ILA, LISP, SRv6 ..etc), there > are two nodes that's where the translation/tunneling is happening. In a > generic sense, it could be a

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

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Alexandre Petrescu < alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 06/02/2018 à 05:52, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : > >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert t...@quantonium.net>> wrote: >> >> We like like to request that the dmm WG

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

Le 06/02/2018 à 05:52, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert > wrote: We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC".

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

Arashmid - response inline From: ila [mailto:ila-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid Akhavain Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 11:14 AM To: Bogineni, Kalyani ; Marco Liebsch Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm Subject: Re:

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

The database is simply a vehicle to locate UPFs in the network. As UPFs move around, the database gets updated and notifies other UPFs that are interested to receive this information. The records could be of course augmented to store additional information. Option 1 might require changes to

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

Kalyani, even with Option 1 I see much impact on the control plane as it implies that SMF offers/uses service to/from the Mapping DB utilizing the service-based interfaces. My comment was more about whether we need or should introduce a new building block into the control plane at all. marco