orry for jumping into the discussion...
> > > From my and (AFAIK) 3GPPs understanding your smartphone is a
> > UE - sitting on the other side of RAN (gNB) - whereas a UPF
> > normally is seen as UP entry (and exit) of the 5G core (i.e.
> > hand
an opportunity.
>>>
>>> Not if they are encapsulated and routers don’t touch
packets inside.
>>>
>>> Dino
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Bhaskaran [mailto:sridhar.bhaska...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 October 2018 12:29
To: Arashmid Akhavain
Cc: sarik...@ieee.org; homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>>A UPF is any function that can be executed on user t
ee
> will be in the form of SGW, PGW.
>
>
>
> Arashmid
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Behcet Sarikaya
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2018 11:44 AM
> *To:* Shunsuke Homma
> *Cc:* dmm
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] Comments t
[mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 11:44 AM
To: Shunsuke Homma
Cc: dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
UPF is virtualized PGW, folks.
While PGW is fixed in location and possibly serving a large number of UE
; From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> > Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2018 13:22
> > To: dmm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 01/10/2018 à 05:5
someone imagine any scenario where UE implements
UPF?
Thanks!
Best Regards
Dirk
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2018 13:22
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
glorified router).
Tom
> Thanks!
> Best Regards
> Dirk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Montag, 1. Oktober 2018 13:22
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-upl
hat, GTP did it the right way, even though it cost in
>>>> header length.
>>>>
>>>> Dino
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Arashmid Akhavain
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, flow labels ca
; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
I think you’ll still have the PHB re-marking issues I mentioned in
previous
emails. The question is, should the network touch/change any header
bits of
the packet the source has built. The ans
-
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 September 2018 13:08
To: Arashmid Akhavain
Cc: Tom Herbert ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
I think you’ll still have the PHB re-marking issues I mentioned in previ
Folks, let's not forget that most of these things you are talking about are
session layer issues.
According to OSI layering, the session layer is Layer 5, above Layer 4
which is transport layer.
3GPP is using UDP which is Layer 4 for this session layer coding. I think
probably it is a better layer
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
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net]
>> Sent: 07 September 2018 11:51
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain
>> Cc: Dino Farinacci ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
>> dmm
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm
nto slices. I should look into the air side of
>> the
>> business and see what happens there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net]
>>>> Sent: 07 September 2018 11
?
Arashmid
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net]
> Sent: 07 September 2018 11:51
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> Cc: Dino Farinacci ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
> dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
&g
Sent: 07 September 2018 13:08
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> Cc: Tom Herbert ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
> dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> I think you’ll still have the PHB re-marking issues I mentioned in previous
> emails. The q
m: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: 06 September 2018 18:59
>>>> To: Arashmid Akhavain
>>>> Cc: Tom Herbert ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
>>>> dmm
>>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analy
Dino Farinacci ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
>> dmm
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Arashmid Akhavain
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>&
nal Message-
> From: Tom Herbert [mailto:t...@quantonium.net]
> Sent: 07 September 2018 11:13
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> Cc: Dino Farinacci ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
> dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> On Fri, Sep 7
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2018 19:01
> To: Tom Herbert
> Cc: Arashmid Akhavain ; ta-
> miyas...@kddi-research.jp; dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> I’d ask the question another way:
gt; > Now, here is an interesting question for the operators. Would any operator
>> be interested in allowing QoS to be set by the UE or by applications running
>> in the UE and charged for by the network? "Yes" could potentially imply
>> impacts on the air interface
> -Original Message-
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 September 2018 18:59
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> Cc: Tom Herbert ; ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp;
> dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
&g
Cc: ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp; dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:35 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/09/2018 à 12:27, Sridhar Bhaskaran a écrit :
> > Dear Behcet,
> >
> > >>What is PFCP, is it GTP-U?
> >
> > PFCP is a control plane protocol used between control plane function and
> > user plane
Le 04/09/2018 à 18:42, Dino Farinacci a écrit :
Folks, I sent comment to the authors and they asked me to forward them
to the WG list.
I also attended 3GPP/CT4 a couple of weeks ago and can report on it in
Bangkok. Maybe Satoru can as well. There were two IETF-related
presentations given.
tent to the
>> provider or the whole Internet. Firewall and Service Tickets is being
>> proposed as one such mechanism to solve this (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-fast).
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> Arashmid
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
ewall and Service Tickets is being
proposed as one such mechanism to solve this (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-fast).
Tom
> Arashmid
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
>> Sent: 06 Septem
...@kddi-research.jp; dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> > Behcet,
> >
> > I was thinking if TEID is need then that can be encoded in a locator
> > easily enough.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Not if a locator is a PGW that
Cc: ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp; dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert
mailto:t...@quantonium.net>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
mailto:sridhar.bhaska...@gmail.com>> wrote:
&
:22
> To: Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: ta-miyas...@kddi-research.jp; dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
>>&g
> Behcet,
>
> I was thinking if TEID is need then that can be encoded in a locator
> easily enough.
>
> Tom
Not if a locator is a PGW that is shared by many UEs.
3GPP wants per bearer awareness so they need a specific ID, that could have
been the UE’s IP address. And with IPv6 it can be
> Sridhar,
>
> Couldn't the TEID be encoded in the outer IP address of an
> encpasulation or network overlay in a similar way that VNIs are
> encoded in IP addresses in virtual networking?
>
> Tom
There are lots of ways to do it. The point is, was an additional 32 bits
necessary solely for
-research.jp; dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comments to draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
>> wrote:
>>
Sridhar,
> [SB] Lets say we only use UE IP address and no TEID. How will you identify
> the bearer context the packet belongs? One UE may use multiple radio bearers
> / QoS flows. DSCP in IPv4 and Flow Label in IPv6 is one option but these are
> IP level markings which could be changed by any
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
>> wrote:
>> > My comments inline marked [SB]
>> >
>> >> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:40 AM Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
> wrote:
> > My comments inline marked [SB]
> >
> >> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly
> why a
> >> > >>> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Sridhar Bhaskaran
wrote:
> My comments inline marked [SB]
>
>> > >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
>> > >>> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
>> > >>> one-to-one mapping between tunnel and
My comments inline marked [SB]
> >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
> one-to-one mapping between tunnel and user, why couldn’t the inner
> addresses be used for accounting?
> >
> >
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:56 AM Sridhar Bhaskaran <
sridhar.bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Dino,
>
> Some clarifications on your comments
>
> >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
> TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
>
> Dear Dino,
>
> Some clarifications on your comments
I am going to use general terms here so we don’t get hung up in IETF and/or
3GPP terminology. Which doesn’t make things clear to anyone really. So we can
stay on point.
> >>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly
Dear Dino,
Some clarifications on your comments
>>> It was never clear to me and no one could ever explain exactly why a
TEID is needed. I presumed for accounting reasons. But if there was a
one-to-one mapping between tunnel and user, why couldn’t the inner
addresses be used for accounting?
42 matches
Mail list logo
