Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

 Hi Satish, all,

When you post mails on 5G IP list, please, please do not use long cc
lists! We said this before, now repeating again.
Most of those people in your cc list are already on the list, the
mailer automatically distributes the mails to everybody.
If you think someone is not subscribed, please let me and Dirk, we can
subscribe those people.

If you use long cc lists, the reflector starts to malfunction, so your
mail may not get delivered at all.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:01 AM, K, Satish (Nokia - IN)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Peter:
>
> Thanks for the good discussion points.
>
> In this context, just want to point to the ongoing work on MAMS (Multi Access Management Services - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kanugovi-intarea-mams-protocol-02) as it does addresses some of these points.  It provides an over-the-top interworking framework that provides a single/unified framework for managing interworking between multiple different fixed, and multiple different mobile networks.
>
> The network side functions can be flexibly instantiated either at the core or at the access edge.
> As an example of MAMS instantiation at the access edge, MEC can host (e.g. as apps) the network selection control functions (referred as NCM and N-MADP). MAMS functions, hosted on the MEC, also provide the location mapping functions, i.e., selection of core network path for upstream data, and selection appropriate access links for delivering the downstream data, which is in alignment with schemes for separation of location and ID .
>
> BR
> Satish
>
> Satish Kanugovi ([e-mail]), DMTS, :Core Networks Evolution Group:
> Core, Cloud & Software Innovation Planning  @ Mobile Networks CTO
> Call/Text: [phone] (cell), https://www.linkedin.com/in/satishkanugovi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of AshwoodsmithPeter
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:26 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt
>
> Oh, on the discussions of LISP (and I use LISP as a generic term for separation of location and ID and not to refer to a specific format):
>
> The discussion of LISP could be framed in the context of Fixed Mobile Convergence where it offers some interesting advantages as follows:
>
> Fixed Mobile Convergence or FMC could better be described as (F)+(M)+C .. i.e. there are multiple fixed and multiple mobile networks that need to be converged, not just one of each.
>
> If there were just one fixed network and one mobile network then an interworking solution to FMC requires a single protocol to hand off between the two. The problem of course is that there are multiple different fixed and multiple different mobile networks that ideally should be converged. An interworking solution therefore results in O(N^2) protocols while an over the top solution just adds one.
>
> Hmm .. then again for standards folks interworking would be lots of new work ;)
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of AshwoodsmithPeter
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:50 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Starting to read this over in a bit more depth and had a couple of quick general comments before I dig deeper.
>
> 1 - The introduction implies that the infrastructure has to be ready to meet 5G needs. This is too late. The 4.5G architecture for things like NB-IOT and highly virtualized cores for EPC will require very similar architectures and one can think of NB-IOT and 4G as slices implemented in the supporting infrastructure.  So we can imagine operators deploying an architecture now that will allow 4G and 5G to co-exist and for resources to be adjusted as required between them as 5G penetrates more and more. While I have no idea what will happen with 5G , for 3G to 4G there are radios that do both to ease migration so perhaps the same will happen with 5G?
>
> 2- There is a conspicuous lack of discussion of front haul and its role. Detnet and its relationship to eCPRI and ROE/1904.3 should be explored. There may well also be ACTN related issues for the analog FH, at a minimum there are auto discovery issues on every fiber and wire irrespective of what they ultimately carry.
>
> 3- The control hierarchy/orchestration and its interworking when you cease to continue moving up a hierarchy needs to be addressed, I suppose a form of BGP or other peering between autonomous 5G systems would be required because we can't have a master controller for the 5G world.
>
> Anyway just a few early thoughts.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 2:53 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt
>
> Hi all,
>
> Dirk and I submitted Rev. 02 of 5G IP issues draft.
> Your comments will be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dirk& Behcet
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues
> Revision:       02
> Title:          Review on issues in discussion of next generation
> converged networks (5G) from an IP point of view Document date:  2017-02-23
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          18
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-02
>
> Abstract:
>    This document presents considerations related to open and upcoming
>    issues with upcoming new communication systems denoted as 5G aiming
>    to set a basis for documenting problem space, use-cases, and
>    potential solutions related to next-generation network
>    infrastructure.  The draft reviews currently investigated topics,
>    including both inputs from IETF and from other SDOs as well as
>    research activities.  Further the outcome of recent discussions at
>    side sessions during IETF meetings are recaptured to help identifying
>    a starting point for future thoughts.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip