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

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> wrote: > ID-LOC (SRV6, ILA, LISP, ILNP) would cover these use cases easily > since UE ID re

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

[mailto:t...@quantonium.net] Sent: 27 March 2018 15:50 To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.a

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I realize there have been some discussions, but I think its time to reopen > those discussion in 6MAN or wherever and find a way-forward. There is a > strong use-case now for such capability. I am

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

For untrusted access (Ex: 3GPP access over untrusted Wi-Fi), protocols like IKEv2-IPsec/MIPv6-UDP (client based solutions) are possible candidates; I agree with Charlie on that. I realize there is work in progress in 5G specs on these interfaces, but I do not see many new options there. Sri

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

y Tom. >> >> -- >> Uma C. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert >> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM >> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> >> Cc: dmm@ietf.org

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

ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Herbert > Sent: 27 March 2018 11:05 > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > <sgund...@cisco.c

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

regards, Arashmid -Original Message- From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net] Sent: 27 March 2018 15:02 To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 Hello Arashmid, > if a WiFi netw

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

> Sent: 27 March 2018 10:03 > To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima > <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thank

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

Herbert Sent: 27 March 2018 11:05 To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Her

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] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima > <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thank you Tom, >> >> Unfortunatel

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

half Of Tom Herbert > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:05 AM > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > <sgund...@cisco.com

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

;satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Tom, > > Unfortunately I couldn’t find clear advantage of GUE against GTP-U. > (No

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

Re: [DMM] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" <t...@quantonium.net> wrote: > >>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "t

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:17 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > > On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" wrote: > >>> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >>> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" >> > > I am really hoping

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

On 3/26/18, 5:16 PM, "Tom Herbert" wrote: >> With regards to SR encapsulation: "this is using IP-in-IP as default. >> Why not using UDP encapsulation?" > I am really hoping we will be able to apply SRH insertion without the need for IP encapsulation. At least for mobile

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

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:52 AM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > One thing I want to follow my comment. > >> Basic functionalities of GTP-U is that sequence number option, >> extension-headers, and multicast and those should be the part of criteria. >> IMO as you

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

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > Thank you Tom, > > Unfortunately I couldn’t find clear advantage of GUE against GTP-U. (No > offensive, please don’t get me wrong.) > > I couldn’t see GUE in NVO WG doc list. But I can see much more

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

One thing I want to follow my comment. > Basic functionalities of GTP-U is that sequence number option, > extension-headers, and multicast and those should be the part of criteria. > IMO as you suggested, overhead size, performance, TE, extensibility and > encryption would be good idea for the

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

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > Thank you Tom for your suggestion. > > Do you think that GUE has some advantages against GTP-U? I believe so. GUE is designed to be a general purposed multi use case encapsulation. The defined GUE extensions

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] IETF101 DMM WG Meeting Notes #1

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > FYI. This is the notes that Carlos captured. Thank you Carlos!! > > We are also waiting for Lyle to share his notes. Please review and > comment, if you see any mistakes. > With regards to SR encapsulation: