Re: [DMM] IETF102 - Call for agenda items

Kalyani - Sure! Sri On 5/3/18, 5:25 PM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" wrote: >Dapeng, Sri: > >Can you include this in the agenda? > >Topic Name: Optimized Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G >Presenter Name: Kalyani Bogineni and others >Time: 30 minutes >Draft

Re: [DMM] IETF102 - Call for agenda items

Dapeng, Sri: Can you include this in the agenda? Topic Name: Optimized Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G Presenter Name: Kalyani Bogineni and others Time: 30 minutes Draft Reference: draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-solutions.txt Kalyani -Original Message- From: dmm

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

>> Well, one can have one own's HA (not cellular network's) to manage the >>static prefix allocated to the UE, and the cellular network to assign a >>variable prefix in RA. Sure, but now the discussion is no longer about the IPv6 prefix allocation for the LTE access. You can do this today if you

Re: [DMM] draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa

Hi Arashmid, Thanks for the review feedback !! I will let Marco respond to this thread. Regards Sri From: Arashmid Akhavain > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 2:38 PM To: Sri Gundavelli

[DMM] draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa

Hi Sri, Please find below some questions and comments. Best regards, Arashmid 1- This technique certainly eliminates the need for fixed anchor points from the data plane point of view. However, it is not clear what happens to other functions provided by the existing 3GPP fixed anchor points.

[DMM] IETF102 - Call for agenda items

The DMM working group is planning to meet in IETF 102, week of 16th of July, 2018 at Montreal. We currently have requested for one meeting, which is a 2.5 hour slot. We realize in IETF101 we had many items with a fully packaged agenda, and could not allocate enough time for any of the topics. For

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 03/05/2018 à 15:55, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : It is probably the only reason at this time that makes Mobile IP still necessary. Not really. You will have the same issue with Mobile IP. Static allocation implies the UE’s session is anchored on a gateway node which is the

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

> It is probably the only reason at this time that makes Mobile IP still >necessary. Not really. You will have the same issue with Mobile IP. Static allocation implies the UE’s session is anchored on a gateway node which is the topological anchor for that address block. Unless, the assigned

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "LS on indicating service continuity usage of the additional IPv6 prefix in Router Advertisement"

Le 02/05/2018 à 16:29, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : I can agree that the possibility with RADIUS/DIAMETER permits to alocate a stable prefix in RA to a UE. However, I have never seen it in practice in a cellular network. Enabling static IP allocation by default has a scaling issue.