Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-00.txt

/7/12 Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com: Hi Liu, Thanks for your good question. We, bgp operator are struggle fast convergence for bgp that most of the issues come from best path recalculation on bgp speaker. In the proposed architecture we expect no such kind of recalc

Re: [DMM] Questions on draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02

Hi Peter, On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Peter McCann peter.mcc...@huawei.comwrote: Ryuji, After viewing your slides from the presentation you did overnight (sorry I couldn't be on the call) I went back and re-read the draft-matushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02 draft. I am still

Re: [DMM] Questions on draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02

, Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Peter McCann peter.mcc...@huawei.comwrote: --snip-- No, it isn't meant that specific routes to indicate each UEs prefix are advertised into the core. I'll try to improve that text in next

Re: [DMM] Questions on draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02

Behcet, thanks for clarifying more clearly. :) On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.comwrote: -- snip -- Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I'm sure that RR/RS just only know about routes, nor whole mobility information exists. When I see a node which plays

Re: [DMM] How to progress DMM (was Re: demand for DMM traffic steering)

Hi Jouni, 2014/07/19 19:12、Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com のメール： Ain't that quite visible from the agenda: 1.1) have a look at the re-chartering text that it is roughly acceptable for everyone in the room. We can even do some minor online editing if there is something that

Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items

Hi Behcet, On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that BGP part in vEPC needs rethinking. That's why in DMM WiFi we proposed new approaches like SDN. Please don't get me wrong. My position hasn't been changed. BGP is used to forwarding path

Re: [DMM] Going forward with the DMM work items

Hi Fred, On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote: Hi, Maybe I can't attend next webex meeting tomorrow. That is too bad, because I will be briefing the AERO BGP routing system at the meeting tomorrow. Yes, sorry to say. I read your proposal,

Re: [DMM] [FPSM] next WT call

Hi Marco, Is the timezone in the doodle CST? cheers, --satoru On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Marco Liebsch marco.lieb...@neclab.eu wrote: Folks, as follow-up of two good work team side meetings during IETF91, I’d like to schedule this year’s last telco. Please participate in the

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04

Hi Bechet-san, Thank you for your question. In step (15), I meant that EPC-E advertises prefix including UE assigned prefixes. For example, in the case of /64 prefixes assigned to UEs from a /56 space, that /56 is advertised by EPC-E to upstream routers. So the advertised route isn't host

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-wt-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00

As a coauthor I support to adopt this draft as a WG doc. Regards, --satoru On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, This emails starts a two week call for the I-D draft-wt-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00 to confirm the adoption as a DMM WG document. The call

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04

Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matsushima-san, On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Behcet-san, On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Satoru, Thanks for your reply

Re: [DMM] DMM WT#4 - 2 Discussion

, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) sgund...@cisco.com wrote: Thanks for all the discussion today on the WT#4 call. Attendees: Carlos Jesús Bernardos, Satoru Matsushima, Seil Jeon, KJ Sun, Anthony Chen Sri - Update from Seil - Update from Anthony - CPA/DPA sub-functions and roles

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04

Hi Behcet-san, On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Satoru, Thanks for your reply. Let me continue the discussion with your text in Section 3.2 where you mention vEPC may utilizes Forwarding Policy Configuration Protocol (FPCP) that defines

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

not see in Section 3.2. Are you that we have to to reinvent the wheel, rather than reusing something that is already available? How are we going to reinvent that wheel also remains to be seen, I think. Regards, Behcet On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush

Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04

Behcet, On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: -- snip -- Wait a minute, there is more. It seems like you have not read Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Yes, XMPP and OpenFlow are for Section 4.1 for switch control on mobile backhaul. This is related to a

Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-05

Support. Regards, --satoru On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Jouni wrote: > Folks, > > This email starts the WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-05. > Post your comment to the mailing list and also add your issues/correction > requests/concerns etc into the

Re: [DMM] WG Adoption call for draft-wt-dmm-deployment-models-00

I support this adoption. cheers, --satoru On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Jouni wrote: > Folks, > > As already supported in IETF96 Berlin meeting we are ratifying the > adoption of draft-wt-dmm-deployment-models-00 as a WG Item. The WG > adoption call ends 8/7/2016.

[DMM] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-04.txt

is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management of the IETF. > >Title : Protocol for Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) > in DMM > Authors : Satoru Matsushima > Lyle Bertz > Marco Liebs

Re: [DMM] FW: Network slicing side meeting at IETF97

Thank you Kiran, I had joined the slice meeting and made a comment to a DMM colleague. # My bad I didn't know the DMM multicast draft.. Let me summarize a little bit about discussions of the slice meeting. Many people said their thought almost about network segregation in resource perspective,

[DMM] Change "Port" to ? [ was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-05.txt]

Hi Charlie, First, thank you for raising this point to be discussed. I second that it needs to be more intuitive. > > I am in the process of reviewing the FPC document. It is an important > document and will be foundational for subsequent work in [dmm]. Yep, I really appreciate that you

Re: [DMM] How Encoded SID should be placed in SL (SRv6-mobile-uplane)

Hi Kentaro, On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Kentaro Ebisawa wrote: > Hi, > > I have a few questions about how Encoded SID should be placed in Segment > List and IPv6 Dst Address in Mobile User-Plane use case. > > # Refering to

Re: [DMM] How Encoded SID should be placed in SL (SRv6-mobile-uplane)

Hi Kentaro, I've replied to your previous mail that I hope it would answer to your questions. On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Kentaro Ebisawa wrote: > Hi, > > > Q2) Down Link packet (SRv6 to existing network) > > > When the endpoint receives packet and the active segment

Re: [DMM] Review comments on draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02

mobile control-plane also >need to allocate tunnel endpoint IPv4 address to which corresponding >interworking segment destined from existing user-plane that is also >discussed in Section 6.3. > > 9. Security Considerations > >TBD > > 10. IANA Considerations

Re: [DMM] [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP

Ouch, s/Hell/Hello/; Sorry for that rude typo... > 2017/11/15 10:54、Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>のメール: > ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Fwd: Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP

Hell Charlie, First, of course it’s ok to forward and thank you for sharing it for DMM list. Yes, I think that many operators have met various requirements for networks which are supporting mobile user-plane nowadays. My understanding is that mobility management itself is a bit complicated

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-03 as DMM WG document

I support the adoption as a co-author. Cheers, --satoru > 2017/11/14 16:02、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール: > > Folks: > > The following message commences a two week call for opinions on the adoption > of draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-03 as a DMM Working

Re: [DMM] FPC: Move Descriptor-/Action-Value into Rule

Now I seems I’m confused when I see what does the type define. Does the type define type of value, or type of action/descritor? Cheers, --satoru > 2017/11/28 14:11、Moses, Danny のメール: > > I am OK with the current structure. > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-03 as DMM WG document

DMM WG chairs, > Authors: > > Please submit, "draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-03" as > "draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00” with exactly one change reflecting > Charlie as a co-author. > I’ve just submitted it as “draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00”. Please check it out.

Re: [DMM] Some review comments on draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-03

Thank you Charlie, for your comments. > [...] > As I mentioned in previous email to this mailing list, I think it is > important to describe previous efforts to provide a source-routing solution > for mobility management, and to suggest reasons why the SRv6 approach will > find success

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

Hi Ebisawa-san, Thank you for your review. That’s helpful. Please see my comments in line: > [...] > ## Comments to Stateless Interworking > > In general, I thought 5.4 and 6.3 could be combined or be more closer. > I think organization of the document would be changed a lot from various >

Re: [DMM] white paper for optimized mobile user plane solutions for 5G

Hello Kalyani, +1. White paper looks a good work to start the user-plane study here in IETF. I support it. I think that comparison with quantitive measurements may need to use specific deployment metrics in each operator. But through this white paper work, if we figure out clear criteria for

Re: [DMM] Review comments on draft-matsushima-spring-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02

consideration has also been described well than -02 version. Cheers, --satoru > 2017/11/13 20:14、Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>のメール: > > Thank you Sri, for your review. > >> 1.) It will be useful to identify the key data plane features used

Re: [DMM] FPC: Move Descriptor-/Action-Value into Rule

Thank you Marco for capturing my proposal. My intention is that the agent should define descriptor/action-definition without concrete value so that rules can use them and the rules can define concrete values. Otherwise the agent should define descriptor/action-definitions for each rules which

Re: [DMM] Fwd: Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP

v6 > standard header information (5-tuple)? > > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:54 PM > To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perk...@earthlink.net> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Sub

Re: [DMM] Meeting Minutes from DMM Meeting@IETF100

Hi, thank you Danny and for the minute. Please correct the minute for: > Dave (Ericsson): was that presented in spring -> Satoru: Not yet. FYI I had a chat with spring chairs to share what's going on with SRv6. Maybe I’d request sprint chairs a slot to present SRv6 Mobile UPlane in next IETF

Re: [DMM] FPC: Move Descriptor-/Action-Value into Rule

; False=Permit). I think so too. cheers, --satoru > > > > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:32 PM > To: Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject:

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

t; 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 > S

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

rom: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:02 PM > To: Satoru Matsushima > Cc: dmm > Subject: Re: [DMM] User Plane Protocol Study in 3GPP > > That sounds like you want to do IPv4 over IPv6. Do you think carriers will > bu

[DMM] Overall review on "draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00"

Dear Kalyani, and the draft authors, Thank you so much for working on this I-D which brings much information regarding user plane protocols in IETF. It looks very promising work on IETF side corresponding to the user plane protocol study work (FS_UPPS) in 3GPP CT4. Since I’m in the loop in the

Re: [DMM] IETF102 - Call for agenda items

Dear DMM WG chairs, I’d request a 15min slot for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane by one of the authors. Topic Name: SRv6 Mobile User Plane Presenter Name: TBD Time: 15min Draft Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane Best regards, --satoru > 2018/06/07

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

Hello Tom, To make the overhead discussion quantitative and realistic, I’ve made a spreadsheet of user-plane total overhead comparison by deployment scenarios. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fx8ilE_bQPkhFBoSd-qRS5ok2IO1i0VZbmwzZJNVh0g/edit?usp=sharing This includes not only

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

Hello Kalyani, > [..snip..] > Your slides 9 – 13 show interactions between UPFs and SMF. There are 2 kinds > of UPFs: > Anchor type UPF and service function type UPF. What are the functionalities > of these? Please find some functionalities in the SRv6 mobile Uplane draft:

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

emented on IPv6/SRv6 nodes? > > It would be beneficial if you can provide clarifications and add a section to > your draft. > > Kalyani > > -Original Message- > From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsush...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 2:5

Re: [DMM] FPC meetings - Cancelling tomorrow's meeting

Lyle, that sounds good. What does update the document? Is there anything the call outcomes? Some brief minutes would help people to find out the points for the updates. Cheers, --satoru > 2018/02/13 11:00、Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] のメール: > > All, > > I sent out invites for

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

Hello Kalyani, > [..snip..] > If you mean SRv6 Mobile Uplane draft, it is already a WG document, not my > draft. So I’d collect opinions on this from WG. I’m sorry for that. > As a co-author of the draft, I’m afraid I disagree. SRv6 Mobile Uplane draft > specifies SRv6 functions for mobile

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

Hello Kalyani, > > When you see UPF specifically it should be controlled by SMF through N4, they > are not the UPFs. > But you might see them as UPFs if a SMF doesn’t control them directly but the > SMF can put the sessions to it through some other means. > 3GPP SA2 has studied on that case

[DMM] Non-mobility functions in Uplane [was Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt]

Kalyani, # Subject changed. > > Maybe you can see SRv6 mobile uplane as a set of SRv6 functions like a SRv6 > profile for mobile with some augment. > > When it comes to service function type UPF, you name it. Following draft > exhibits how service chain can be done by SRv6: > [KB] I think

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

Hello Uma, > > When it comes to service function type UPF, you name it. Following draft > exhibits how service chain can be done by SRv6: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00 > > [Uma]: I presume this is on N6 interface once de-capsulation is done at >

Re: [DMM] Comments on SRv6-mobile-userplane-02

Thank you Hannu for your comments. I found the word ‘anchor’ 18 times in the draft, and I agree with you that those need to be clarified. Best regards, --satoru > 2018/09/05 20:53、Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > のメール: > > Hello > > The draft SRv6-mobile-userplane seems to use the term

Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

Thanks Sridhar for your followups. > Just pointing people to drafts doesn’t help in understanding. It requires > people to go off, put in a lot of time where the odds are their question will > not be answered. > > [SB] TS 29.244 is not a draft but rather a full fledged technical >

[DMM] SRv6 for 5G Mobile [was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01.txt]

FYI. A blog entry posted to APNIC: "Reducing the complexity of 5G networks using Segment Routing IPv6" https://blog.apnic.net/2018/03/07/reducing-complexity-5g-networks-using-segment-routing-ipv6/ Please take a look. Cheers, --satoru > 2018/03/06 9:34、Satoru Matsushima &l

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

rs_ex-CN4/TSGCT4_83_Montreal/Docs/C4-182246.zip > > LS out from CT4 to RAN3: > http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/WG4_protocollars_ex-CN4/TSGCT4_83_Montreal/Docs/C4-182247.zip > > Thanks > Sridhar > > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sa

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

it may literally be enhanced. But at this revision of the draft, it is assumed that gNB is capable to resolve SR policy from remote endpoint address of tunnel to SIDs list while N2 is unchanged and kept as it is. Cheers, --satoru > > Thanks, > John > > > > -Original Mess

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

;> >>> Corresponding agreed CR in CT4: >>> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/WG4_protocollars_ex-CN4/TSGCT4_83_Montreal/Docs/C4-182246.zip >>> >>> LS out from CT4 to RAN3: >>> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/WG4_protocollars_ex-CN4/TSGCT4_83_Montrea

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

and egress. In SR case it requires just 2 states at the ingresses for both directions. Cheers, --satoru > > marco > > > -Original Message- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 17:23 > To: Tom Herb

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

Hello Tom, >> 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. >> > > Hi Satoru, > > If there are no intermediate hops od

Re: [DMM] Next Header in End.M.GTP6.D (draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-01)

Hi Arashmid, Yes, it needs to be clarified. Here I think that in terms of GTP-U over IPv6 case, gNB could be signaled a remote IPv6 endpoint address to which the SRGW binds a SID with appropriate payload type, such as IPv4/IPv6/Ethernet. In enhanced mode the SID doesn’t need to be allocated

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01 as DMM WG document

Support. Cheers, --satoru > 2018/03/28 6:25、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール: > > Folks: > > During IETF 99 and IETF 100 we polled the room for their interest in taking > up draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif- as a DMM working group document. In both > those occasions there

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

be good idea for the criteria in addition to the above > fundamental ones. I think that we have to have OAM functionality in addition to that criteria. Best regards, --satoru > 2018/03/27 15:57、Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>のメール: > > Thank you Tom, > >

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Thank you Tom for your suggestion. Do you think that GUE has some advantages against GTP-U? When it comes to foo over UDP capsulation, does GUE benefit user plane beyond GTP-U? Best regards, --satoru > 2018/03/27 9:16、Tom Herbert のメール: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:27

Re: [DMM] [5gangip] Reviewing GTP (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

Hello John, If it would useful, I’d like to cooperate that GTP review work at user plane point of view. Thanks. Cheers, --satoru > 2018/03/29 19:38、John Grant のメール: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:49 AM, Alexandre Petrescu gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Le 23/03/2018 à

Re: [DMM] [5gangip] Reviewing GTP (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

/31 0:26、Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com>のメール: > > Hi Satoru, > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Satoru Matsushima > <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello John, > > If it would useful, I’d like to cooperate that GTP review work

Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]

Thanks authors, Actually this draft sounds interesting for me. Some points for that are following: 1. Utilizing existing control plane for distributed mobility functions. 2. Those mobility functions could be programmed through some interface, i.e: FPC 3. I’d see some similarity with MFA ideas.

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

BTW 5G Rel-15 doesn’t support IPv4v6 type session. But Docomo is trying to get back v4v6 to the updated Rel-15 stage 2 spec. I don’t know why. > 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: > > I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is > there a

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

Next header type maybe? Interestingly GTP-U doesn’t have it. Sent from my iPhone 2018/03/20 18:17、Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com>のメール: > How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft. > > Dino > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsus

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

Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort. Sent from my iPhone 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール: > I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is > there a requirement to support IPv4 mobile or dual stack? > > Lyle

Re: [DMM] IETF101 - Call for agenda items

Dear DMM chairs, I hope this is not too late. I’d request a 10min slot to present the updates of SRv6 Mobile User Plane draft. Cheers, --satoru > 2018/03/06 1:50、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール: > > Folks - This is the Agenda for the DMM Working Group meeting at IETF101. >

Re: [DMM] SRv6 for Mobile User-Plane

Hi Pablo, Let me focus on one point. > [...snip...] > > > > > Uplink > > Note: S1, S2 represent service functions and C1 represents a node for > TE purposes > > UE sends its packet (A, Z) on a specific wireless bearer to its gNB > > gNB’s CP associates the session

Re: [DMM] SRv6 for Mobile User-Plane

Pablo, First of all, thank you for your thorough review on the draft, and concrete proposal to improve it. I think I agree almost on the three proposals. Let me comment on some of your points. > [...snip...] > > I believe its straightforward to support IPv4 UE traffic by doing SRv6 with >

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

>Title : Segment Routing IPv6 for Mobile User Plane >Authors : Satoru Matsushima > Clarence Filsfils > Miya Kohno > Pablo Camarillo > Daniel Vo

Re: [DMM] IETF101 - Call for agenda items

discussion of DMM >> Deployment Models draft. >> >> >> Regards, >> Seil Jeon >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli >> (sgundave) >> Sent: Monday, March 5, 20

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

Thank you Sri, and all, During that, let me make clear some questions and comments. First one: > So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP that > they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT. It’s wrong. In the LS of CP-173160 requested any information regarding

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

More precisely on the latter point, > >> Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And >> conclusion thereof that “The expected evaluation points from this aspect >> should be whether the candidate protocols can support to indicate a network >> slice in the UP packets.”

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-04.txt

Title : Segment Routing IPv6 for Mobile User Plane > Authors : Satoru Matsushima > Clarence Filsfils > Miya Kohno > Pablo Camarillo Garvia > Daniel Voyer >

Re: [DMM] IETF105 - Call for agenda items

Dear DMM chair, I’d request a slot for SRv6 user plane update: Topic Name: SRv6 Mobile User Plane Presenter: Satoru Matsushima Time: 20min Draft Reference: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-05 Best regards, --satoru 2019/07/08 22:41、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール: > Gentle reminder. Ple

Re: [DMM] 6.6. T.M.GTP4.D description (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-05.txt

Sent: 2019/07/08 21:16:07 > Subject: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-05.txt > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management

Re: [DMM] New chair addition for dmm

4, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I would like to announce the appointment of Satoru Matsushima as a new >> co-chair for the dmm working group. Sri and Dapeng will continue as >> co-chairs. >> Satoru-san has been an activ

Re: [DMM] IETF106 - Call for Agenda Items

One correction for a typo: > Reminder: > The draft cut-off date: 4th November UTC 23:59 (2 weeks before the meeting). Regards, --satoru > 2019/10/22 12:07、Satoru Matsushima のメール: > > Folks, > > The DMM chairs are planning the dmm meeting in Singapore at IETF106: >

[DMM] IETF106 - Call for Agenda Items

Folks, The DMM chairs are planning the dmm meeting in Singapore at IETF106: 18th November, Monday Afternoon Session II (15:50-17:50) If you have a draft or any topics you would like to discuss, please send your request for agenda time to the dmm chairs. Please include the information in the

Re: [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-07

Hi Carlos, Thanks for your review. The authors will address your comments and get back to you when the decription is failed. :-) Before that the draft needs to be back from expire state. So authors, please submit a revision with minimum update. Cheers, --satoru > 2020/06/23 2:15、CARLOS JESUS

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

Uploaded revision of the agenda, just to fix the mime type. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/agenda-109-dmm-02 cheers, --satoru > 2020/11/14 0:00、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > のメール: > > Please review the agenda for IETF 109. > >

[DMM] First online DMM meeting

Folks, Thank you for joining the first online meeting of DMM working group. I believe that we had acquired some meetecho operation skills which can help us next our meetings. But sorry for that we missed some discussions through the meeting so please post your follow up comments on the topic

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

gt;> >> - >> Working Group Name: Distributed Mobility Management >> Area Name: Internet Area >> Session Requester: Sri Gundavelli >> >> >> Number of Sessions: 1 >> Length

[DMM] Call for Agenda: IETF110 DMM

> Session Requester: Sri Gundavelli > > > Number of Sessions: 1 > Length of Session(s): 2 Hours > Number of Attendees: 25 > Conflicts to Avoid: > > > > > > > > > People who must be present: > Sri Gundavelli > Erik Kline > Dap

Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-architecture-00.txt

ou run BPG? Is the figure 1 correct > by indicating that that gNBs are in MPU segment? Which entry runs NG-AP in > this set up? > > Best regards > Hannu > > From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of > Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2

[DMM] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-architecture-00.txt

IPv6 Mobile User Plane Architecture > for Distributed Mobility Management > Authors : Satoru Matsushima > Katsuhiro Horiba > Ashiq Khan > Yuya Kawakami > T

[DMM] Our next DMM meeting

Dear DMMers, As the circumstance is changing and our discussion progress, the DMM WG chairs have decided that our next meeting will be IETF112 in Madrid. On-site meeting would help us to host more intensive discussions rather than on-line in limited slot and time. We really look forward that

[DMM] DMM Agenda for IETF113

Dear DMMers, We will have a DMM meeting in IETF113. If you have any topic to the meeting please let us know title, presenter, and time for your topic. Cheers, Sri, Dapeng, Satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org

Re: [DMM] Adoption call for I.D.: draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06 (Mobile User Plane Evolution)

Hi Jeffrey, Tianji, Your draft says: This document is not an attempt to do 3GPP work in IETF. Rather, it >discusses potential integration of IETF/wireline and 3GPP/wireless >technologies - first among parties who are familiar with both areas >and friendly with IETF/wireline

Re: [DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (2) for "Mobile User Plane Evolution" - draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06

ibing how to realize an N x M AN and UPF instances > behaving as a single manageable “ANUP” entity. > > (and assuming/based on already defined 3GPP CP session and mobility > functionality) > > Regards, > > John > > > > > > *From:* dmm *On Behalf Of * Satoru M

Re: [DMM] Adoption call for I.D.: draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06 (Mobile User Plane Evolution)

as it is outside of IETF work. Of course we can input any drafts which DMM WG can work on. Best regards, --satoru On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:40 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Hi Satoru, > > > > Please see zzh> below. > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > >

[DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (1) for "Architecture Discussion on SRv6 Mobile User plane" - draft-kohno-dmm-srv6mob-arch-07

Dear DMMers, This email starts a two-weeks DMM WG adoption poll (1) for "Architecture Discussion on SRv6 Mobile User plane" - draft-kohno-dmm-srv6mob-arch-07. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kohno-dmm-srv6mob-arch/ Please review the draft and post any comments on this mail thread prior

[DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (2) for "Mobile User Plane Evolution" - draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06

Dear DMMers, This email starts a two-weeks DMM WG adoption poll (2) for ""Mobile User Plane Evolution" - draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution/ Please review the draft and post any comments on this mail thread prior to Friday,

[DMM] Is IPv6 UDP checksum deployment impact an input to 3GPP?

Dear DMMers, During IETF117 DMM meeting, we had a report of the IPv6 UDP checksum deployment impact in the following I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murakami-dmm-udp-checksum-impact-gtpu/ In the meeting room, the chairs observed that DMMers were interested in this draft as an input

Re: [DMM] DMM WG Adoption Poll (2) for "Mobile User Plane Evolution" - draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution-06

Katsuhiro, Jeffrey, please clarify what the control plane means here. E.g., (1) control plane in mobility management (MM) and session management (SM) in 5G architecture, (2) signaling protocols for N1/2 and N4, or (3) control plane for IP routing, BGP, etc., Cheers, --satoru On Sat, Oct 21, 2023

[DMM] DMM WG Agenda for IETF118

Dear DMMers, We will have a DMM meeting at IETF118. Please let us know if you have any topic to the meeting with your presentation title, presenter, and time. Cheers, Sri, Satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org

Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-duongph-dmm-computing-aware-ts-mup-sr-01.txt

Thanks Dương, cheers, --satoru On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 3:51 PM Dương Phùng Hà wrote: > Dear DMM Working Group, > > My name is Phung Ha Duong. I will attend the IETF 118 Prague onsite, > especially the DMM meeting. > If it is possible, I would like to get 10 minutes for a presentation about > my

[DMM] DMM Agenda for IETF115

Dear DMMers, We will have a DMM meeting in IETF115. If you have any topics to the meeting please let us know the title, presenter name and slot time for your presentation. Cheers, Sri, Dapeng, Satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org

Re: [DMM] DMM Agenda for IETF115

ation. > > Please see two slide decks for the two topics. > > > > I’d like to get 10-15 minutes for each presentation. > > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Sent:* Wednesd

[DMM] DMM WG agenda for IETF117

Dear DMMers, We will have a DMM meeting at IETF117. If you have any topic to the meeting please let us know your presentation title, presenter, and time for your topic. Cheers, Sri, Dapeng, Satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org

  1   2   >