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 user plane, which should be architecture > agnostic. > > [KB] Sections 7.2, 7.3 refer to 3GPP terminology like eNB, SGW, PGW. My > comment was suggesting that you include 5G terminology and CUPS terminology > as well so it is clear how your proposal can be used in various scenarios. > Now I’ve got your point. Thank you. >> >> [KB] I am also still not clear if the blue icons (which I think represent >> IP/MPLS nodes) in your slides are included in SRv6 architecture or not. > > I put some text what those icons indicate. Please find them in the slides. > The blue icons represent IPv6 or SRv6 node. > [KB] Seems like the IPv6/SRv6 nodes do not interact with SMF. Is that the > intent? IPv6/SRv6 nodes interact with SMF but it’s indirect, is my idea. Cheers, --satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt
Satoru: Comments inline. -Original Message- From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsush...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:25 AM To: Bogineni, Kalyani <kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [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 (ETSUN). We consider how SMF deal with that > case and SRv6 may help to solve the issues to it in simpler way. > Please let me know if you are interested in. > [KB] is there a TR for ETSUN that I can read? You can read it later on this September. See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__portal.3gpp.org_ngppapp_CreateTdoc.aspx-3Fmode-3Dview-26contributionUid-3DSP-2D170743=DwIFaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=A4gJxIMQxDhuwbITGRX_eHAfWF36yy799w_bFx5TDFc=ZNR28OMiy-m_kDk3BNz7y8KuA-bfdBBr2HeRt8WQl5c [KB] Thank you > > [KB] I think your document needs to separate out 3 architectures: one for 4G > - SGW/PGW; one for 4G - CUPS; and one for 5G - UPF. 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 user plane, which should be architecture agnostic. [KB] Sections 7.2, 7.3 refer to 3GPP terminology like eNB, SGW, PGW. My comment was suggesting that you include 5G terminology and CUPS terminology as well so it is clear how your proposal can be used in various scenarios. > > [KB] I am also still not clear if the blue icons (which I think represent > IP/MPLS nodes) in your slides are included in SRv6 architecture or not. I put some text what those icons indicate. Please find them in the slides. The blue icons represent IPv6 or SRv6 node. [KB] Seems like the IPv6/SRv6 nodes do not interact with SMF. Is that the intent? Cheers, --satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
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 (ETSUN). We consider how SMF deal with that > case and SRv6 may help to solve the issues to it in simpler way. > Please let me know if you are interested in. > [KB] is there a TR for ETSUN that I can read? You can read it later on this September. See https://portal.3gpp.org/ngppapp/CreateTdoc.aspx?mode=view=SP-170743 > > [KB] I think your document needs to separate out 3 architectures: one for 4G > - SGW/PGW; one for 4G - CUPS; and one for 5G - UPF. 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 user plane, which should be architecture agnostic. > > [KB] I am also still not clear if the blue icons (which I think represent > IP/MPLS nodes) in your slides are included in SRv6 architecture or not. I put some text what those icons indicate. Please find them in the slides. The blue icons represent IPv6 or SRv6 node. Cheers, --satoru ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
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 <kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt [Snip..] 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 eventual UPF. So can I say this is one more alternative to NSH ?? Do you see any relevance of this in any other interface? ... > Also you show IPv6/SRv6 nodes in those slides. Are the UPFs ‘overlaid’ on > IPv6/SRv6 nodes? > Are these UPFs VNFs? Or are UPFs implemented on IPv6/SRv6 nodes? > 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. [Uma]: Didn't quite understand. Are you referring southbound interface like PCEP here? ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Re: [DMM] [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt
Satoru: Thank you for pointing out further documents. Responses inline: -Original Message- From: ila [mailto:ila-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:00 AM To: Bogineni, Kalyani <kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> Cc: i...@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ila] [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: [KB] Your section 5.2 means that UPF closer to radio network is like SGW and your section 5.3 means that UPF closer to Internet is like PGW. When it comes to anchor, it should be equivalent with PSA, PDU Session Anchor, in TS23.501 of 3GPP 5G_ph1 terminology. [KB] in 5G, the functionality of the 2 UPFs can be implemented as one combined function or could be implemented as 2 separate functions with N9 in between. You would also find various SRv6 functions in the network programming draft: 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 these are non-mobility functions as being discussed on the email thread with Marco Liebsch. > What are the changes in SMF functionalities to support SRv6? Is the > interface between SMF and UPFs based on N4/Sx (PFCP in TS 29.244)? SMF functionalities seems still work in progress so that I couldn’t say clearly what the change to it. In CUPS architecture for both Rel-14 and Rel-15, PFCP is expected as Sx and N4 for SRv6 Uplane with no change to over-the-wire messages in basic mode operation: [KB] CUPS does not support branching point function as in 5G. > Also you show IPv6/SRv6 nodes in those slides. Are the UPFs ‘overlaid’ on > IPv6/SRv6 nodes? > Are these UPFs VNFs? Or are UPFs implemented on IPv6/SRv6 nodes? > 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 (ETSUN). We consider how SMF deal with that case and SRv6 may help to solve the issues to it in simpler way. Please let me know if you are interested in. [KB] is there a TR for ETSUN that I can read? [KB] I think your document needs to separate out 3 architectures: one for 4G - SGW/PGW; one for 4G - CUPS; and one for 5G - UPF. [KB] I am also still not clear if the blue icons (which I think represent IP/MPLS nodes) in your slides are included in SRv6 architecture or not. Cheers, --satoru ___ ila mailing list i...@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ila=DwIGaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=dR68JI_amykfLiJQo5cQmTXwKdX_Pn7g-Th7RudMVeM=xyt0QGlLtTQfHmezWhutpRYBAw5sEsJlHuzrsihNJbM= ___ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
