Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

Dear All, For the Dino's question - > Do you think carriers will build an IPv6-only NGC at this point in time? I don't think so (from the existing deployments perspective, including early 5G transitions). So, IMO - any mobility solution ought to be underlay independent - to allow

Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

Hi Satoru, In-line [Uma]: Cheers! -- Uma C. (responding as an individual) -Original Message- From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsush...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:23 PM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Dino Farinacci ; dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP

Re: [DMM] [Ila] Questions about SRv6 mobile user-plane

Comments are spot-on. Can somebody tell 8200 update would be a possibility in future (w.r.t 6man consensus) i.e., EH insertion in the middle without re-encapsulating the SRH again. I presume the technical aspect for the 8200 mandate is the ability to fragment if needed at the insertion point.

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

Sri, Your summary is comprehensive as it includes DHCP & IKEv2 too though they didn't ask specifically. For IKEv2 I see similar stuff needed for Config Payloads (for most of the attribute types), but not sure how this would be used in FMC cases (non-3GPP access). -- Uma C. -Original

Re: [DMM] [Ila] Questions about SRv6 mobile user-plane

There were several issues raised. I don't think fragmentation actually came up as one of them, but that is good point. [Uma]: Yes. Intermediate nodes cannot fragment packets in IPv6. … - The proposal attempted to carve out an exception to RFC8200 for just SR and limited use to controlled

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

Hi Satoru, Few questions in-line -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: ila [mailto:ila-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:00 AM To: Bogineni, Kalyani Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm Subject: Re:

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

From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:18 PM To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@huawei.com>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; Marco Liebsch <marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>; Dino Farinacci <farin

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

Kalyani - In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:07 PM To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@huawei.com>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; Marco Liebsch <marco.lieb...@neclab.eu&g

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

>Let me think just an example, if a SMF sees an IPv6 address as an UPF address, is actually an IPv6 segment ID of a TE path through several IPv6 routers and links, a southbound could be PCEP but not limited. >BGP-LS should work to disseminate that segment and FPC may

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

[Added Spring too, as one of the chairs, Bruno asked us to discuss] Hi Pablo, Please see in in-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) [mailto:pcama...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:25 AM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: dmm@ietf.org; Arashmid Akhavain ; Alberto Rodriguez

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

ndence from the transport network.” I don’t see the draft text reflects this. Cheers, Arash From: Uma Chunduri Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:10 PM To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) mailto:pcama...@cisco.com>> Cc: dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>; Arashmid Akhavain mailto:aras

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

Tom, >I think the terminology being used in the draft might be making this seem complicated than it actually is. AFAICT, SRv6 traditional mode is nothing more than IP in IP encapsulation, so the requirement of the underlay is that it >forwards IPv6 and intermediate

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

Hi Arashmid, >>[Uma]: 2 quick and minor corrections for the above first.“we encode the TEID >>into a SID” ==> >>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02#section-5.1 >>says “Note that in this mode the TEID is embedded in each SID.” >>(section 5.1.3 confirms this)

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

Tom, In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:12 PM To: Uma Chunduri Cc: Arashmid Akhavain ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ; spr...@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile

Re: [DMM] Comment on SRv6-mobile-userplane

Hi Pablo, >As I already clarified in my previous email, the proposal of >draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane is independent from the underlay network. Great. Thanks. >As I already said in my previous email, we will clarify this in the next >revision of the draft. Sure. Btw, you responded to

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

> Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS > Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to > respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense. +1 -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: dmm

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

In-line.. -- Uma C. -Original Message- From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:23 AM To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chund...@huawei.com> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meet

Re: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay methods

Great work, Thank you Kalyani & Tom. 2 quick questions: 1. I presume SR inline is just SRH with 2 SIDs as mentioned - didn't see the topology used. Do intermediate nodes handle these SIDs, with pointer update in SRH? 2. Also for Geneve - it's IP4 encap and VNI no TLVs? -- Uma C.

Re: [DMM] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01.txt

>A Big progress is that the draft supports interworking with GTP over IPv6 in >addition to GTP over IPv4. >And we have made change SRv6 function to IPv6 encapsulation with SRH instead >of SRH insertion by default. Good to see this and this addresses the RFC 8200 issue – but yes, little bit

Re: [DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02

> > Hi Sridhar, > > > Thanks for your review. > > My response in-line [Uma]: > > -- > Uma C. > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:49 PM Sridhar Bhaskaran < > sridhar.bhaska...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I reviewed draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02 and I have the following >> comments

Re: [DMM] IETF106 - Call for Agenda Items

Dear Satoru & Sri Based on the inputs from DMM group and offline discussions with other folks at IETF105 we published the 05 version https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility/?include_text=1 It would be great if you can put at least 10 minutes for the above in the

Re: [DMM] requesting feedback on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-06

Thanks John for the detailed message and updates in the 06 version of this. Dear All, As I indicated, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07 was mostly a refresh. We are seeking to request WG adoption of this soom and would be happy to hear any feedback before too. --

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

-aware-mobility-07.txt > has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility > Revision: 07 > Title: Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G > Document date: 2020-09-28 > Group:

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

Thanks Kaushik for your comments. Need a quick clarification (see below ..) On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM Majumdar, Kausik < kausik.majum...@commscope.com> wrote: > Hi Uma et all, > > > > Thanks for putting together this draft to describe the framework for > mapping the slices in 5G mobile

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 1:36 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would note that it seems a little odd to do this work when we do not > have agreement on what the exposed properties are of an IETF Network > Slice (see the TEAS discussion), much less how packets are mapped to them. > Sure, Joel. A

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

Thanks Pablo for your comments. In line [Uma]: On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) < pcama...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Uma et al, > > > > Thank you for all the work on this document. > > > > As described in the abstract this document defines two things: > > In section 2 you

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

unction. > Thx. Shall fix this too (left out from earlier versions without getting updated). > > Regards, > > Kausik > > > > *From:* Majumdar, Kausik > *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2020 12:49 PM > *To:* Uma Chunduri ; dmm > *Subject:* RE: [DMM] New Version Noti

Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

Hi Kausik, Many thanks for your clarification below. in-line.. -- Uma C. On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:48 PM Majumdar, Kausik < kausik.majum...@commscope.com> wrote: > Hi Uma, > > > > My comments are inline below. > > > > *From:* dmm *On Behalf Of * Uma Chundur

Re: [DMM] FW: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109

Dear Sri & WG Thx Pable for the minutes and they look good to me. I just want to further elaborate on some of my reposses: a. Keeping the MTNC-ID in the packet header creates complications for L2 (mid/backhaul) and V4 (backhaul) only scenarios. This was discussed in IETF105 presentation

Re: [DMM] FW: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109

Dear Chairs, While the document is far from perfect, it does address all the comments received during the discussions before IETF109 in 08 version ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 ) and over a period of time before. Updates reflecting various points were reflected

Re: [DMM] FW: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109

Dear Sri, We would like to ask a 10 mins slot to update the WG for the to be published draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility (08 version - would be done on 11/02). The changes are mostly to address the recent comments received in the list. -- Uma C. On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 3:49 PM Sri Gundavelli

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document

Hi Kiran, Thanks for your support and your inputs as a co-authoring member of TEAS ongoing work. See in-line [Uma]: -- Uma C. On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:39 PM Kiran Makhijani wrote: > Hi Joel, > The IETF network slices work under teas focuses on control and managing > slices 'with in' the

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document

Hi Joel, I would let John reply to you further , but a quick comment: -- Uma C. On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Joel Halpern Direct < jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > It is quite hard for me to understand what is itnended due to the > terminology differences. It would be helpful before

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document

Dear Hannu, Indeed you raised this point w.r.t terminology in IETF109 and I responded we will consider that as appropriate. I would note the following w.r.t "transport network" aspect: a. Till last quarter TEAS draft was referring to "transport slices terminology" - as in

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document

Hi Jie, In-line .. -- Uma C. On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:22 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > Dear Chairs, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > > After reading this document and the discussion on the list, I also think > some alignment with the TEAS working group on the definition, terminology >

Re: [DMM] Regarding APN Usecase in Mobile Core

Hi Robin, In-line.. Cheers! -- Uma C. On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 5:25 AM Lizhenbin wrote: > Hi APNers and DMMers, > > I remember that in the mobile core scenarios the GTP-u tunnel can be set > up according to the user and application requirements, but I do not > understand the details. > [Uma]:

Re: [DMM] [Apn] Regarding APN Usecase in Mobile Core

face so that quality can be maintained for the voice call. > > > > In theory, multiple APNs all with their own TFT rules and potentially > multiple GTP-u tunnels could be used but this is very rarely done. > > > > David > > > > *From:* Apn *On Behalf Of *Uma Ch

Re: [DMM] [Apn] Regarding APN Usecase in Mobile Core

t; that the VoIP frames (media) are put across the QCI 9 radio bearer and into > the correct class on the IP network. QCI 9 maps to a specific numerology > on the Air Interface so that quality can be maintained for the voice call. > > > > In theory, multiple APNs all with their

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document - Objections

Dear All, As suggested by WG chairs, we would like to spin one more version to address the comments during the adoption call and in that process will reach out to Joel and Hannu (separately) for specific inputs where terminology alignment has to happen w.r.t TEAS slicing definition draft. Will

Re: [DMM] [Apn] Regarding APN Usecase in Mobile Core

ansport network? whether >> there is any simplification or omission of information in the mapping to >> the DSCP? >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Xuesong >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Apn [mailto:apn-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Sr

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-00.txt

w Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management WG of the > IETF. > > Title : Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G > Authors : Uma Chunduri >

Re: [DMM] [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Hi Reza, Many thx for your reply. See a quick response in-line. -- Uma C. On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:46 AM Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < reza.ro...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Uma, > > The comments are inlined. > > > > Reza > > > > > > > >

[DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-09.txt

an < sridh...@altiostar.com>, Uma Chunduri A new version of I-D, draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-09.txt has been successfully submitted by Uma Chunduri and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility Revision: 09 Title: Transport Network aware

[DMM] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Dear All, 2 questions on this draft: 1. Section 4.2 defines 'IETF Network Slice endpoints' It Says - " o They are conceptual points of connection of a consumer network, network function, device, or application to the IETF network slice. This might include routers, switches,

Re: [DMM] What is the slice ID in MBH?

nvenient than UDP port range) – it would be buried deep into the packet. > [Uma]: Please see again above (or the link in my original response). We are happy to extend the headers in L3/L2.5 if 3GPP approves the same. > Hence, slice ID on the link to the 3GPP node and slice ID inside the MB

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02.txt

wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management WG of the > IETF. > > Title : Mobility aware Transport Network Slicing for 5G > Author

Re: [DMM] Additional questions/comments on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-13

Hi Dave, Very good list and I am sure there could be a bit more functionalities GTP overlay has been supporting over a period of time *and* still currently being used in various parts of the cellular networks. Replacing overlays may be a good goal if we can bring the same technical benefits

Re: [DMM] Additional questions/comments on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-13

Dear Dave, I got what you are saying. >The sorts of features we are seeing in the larger 3GPP picture AFAIK are more recent additions for URLLC, CIoT etc. >So picking and choosing based on convenience is not an option; the problem space is not a matter of choosing what to support, >but in

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-03.txt

w Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management WG of the > IETF. > > Title : Mobility aware Transport Network Slicing for 5G > Authors : Uma Chunduri >

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-04.txt

a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management WG of the > IETF. > > Title : Mobility aware Transport Network Slicing for 5G > Authors : Uma Chunduri > John Kaippallimalil > Sridhar Bhaskaran &g

Re: [DMM] Presentation of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-bess-ipvpn-payload-only/

"For example, PE1 can advertise a label for a (source, destination, IP/UDP payload type) tuple with the local semantics being that incoming traffic will be encapsulated in an IP or IP+UDP header and then routed out. When PE2 receives IP or IP+UDP traffic from the UPF, if there is a