Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 16:50 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 5gangip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3347A129BB6; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gAgOQfO6dbOQ; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x234.google.com (mail-yb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0971201F8; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 130so21242950ybl.3; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GzRALMD0paMTDPvahOJGUKbOqGG9PLwriUqU5HxHzpM=; b=L/mJk9fPDKodjQ0lDckqeu2K+O/9AC9lzuJp8RS7lQoUP/DE54/pqD8nLwyA+Pz1MP ufX/v4xSSTqob+7QUdEhdvJAcqzQAAWjj7iO88H/nPOOHDx7Nl9Ls1zQsU13oUsBL677 qDU8W9cbM7diWYHE8SS+zrIzZo0mNEpysu8PmCmDNOHPJcYsL4qR66h3jrVVbQyQbcDH LkQsekPB1e7HhFjY9FfHgf6xd1PsDlNOzsktOWQYsIZ8QYNzkpZl1iWtqom/Acm/wiCm OlpjxEPjRbBOzFIOpp+7dfAGa/pD32ZqMcqSbJ3AL5CCSACMYHtVDLEsHPf7Hvge4JLo sTIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GzRALMD0paMTDPvahOJGUKbOqGG9PLwriUqU5HxHzpM=; b=RGbEi+9A9Eieg5eFAyIlrlfQSydCRjmkV+3gmi+JyLL1+SNuHuMJLfV3NInKyKs62r xztIpZ/NjmQ/DRi3wvVZ4qjWHjss7ylWohICuOutkIDMHj9DPSQByizb2/yB3FkbHOwW 0eEGvJeFmMh3MtWFt3aadJRaoawpSMvhouaq+lvkiC7+dQEag8jGQ5lOTLB29WlPZRFT gR80cJokWz7fT28/+PThJZIwCU3VobXF0dYzuiCyLNZZ3J5SM5/joGpQkBINQijqWbPq K7t1hLklbtVmQnoX46UkOaJdvNDQGLWOkZBNqpDvglVj3qyEHgaXjBuot8ZU/M6u/hVF Zo0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAW7SkMkK4yjXKtDSrDZKQ3/A5cNsorTH9ZBANCQmrCmsyY+uOx 046IYmpyt4efs1C0QhDD1MNVMIVSBw==
X-Received: by 10.37.184.10 with SMTP id v10mr19064633ybj.82.1495558250409; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.153.208 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AM2PR06MB0882CCA1B92365AAC8913858B5F90@AM2PR06MB0882.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <149547735610.22634.10661693302211465600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC8QAcdiCsxRT7_ube47q5YiAdkBP9-jC7AyLWXQaGR4vAboRQ@mail.gmail.com> <1765af8f1375483dba56391633ebb4d5@HE105831.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CAD6AjGSYJVjnBkA0oTO49=ApPeHQBK=z5JPadBtujoP0_9iL8g@mail.gmail.com> <AM2PR06MB0882CCA1B92365AAC8913858B5F90@AM2PR06MB0882.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 09:50:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRGz-=mSAygwgdYQjhDmajAGL335JYUfuLVEak1m=z=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: d.lake@surrey.ac.uk
Cc: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, 5gangip@ietf.org, ideas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0822e59c41bccf055033ca89"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/5gangip/1pyLaKWyC_j4Y8zssOsfboNxevA>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
X-BeenThere: 5gangip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of implications of the upcoming 5th Generation \(fixed and\) Mobile communication systems on IP protocols." <5gangip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/5gangip/>
List-Post: <mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip>, <mailto:5gangip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:50:54 -0000
Thanks for the feedback, inline. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:19 AM, <d.lake@surrey.ac.uk> wrote: > Various comments, agreements, disagreements <dl> in-line </dl>. Plus I’m > cc-ing the IDEAS BoF list as I think we have a degree of cross-over here. > > > > D > > > > *From:* 5gangip [mailto:5gangip-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ca By > *Sent:* 23 May 2017 16:52 > *To:* Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de > *Cc:* 5gangip@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt > > > > Folks, > > > > I remain very skeptical about the value of this group's collected > protocols. The scope overlaps with work in the 3GPP, contradicts work in > the 3GPP, and the proposed ideas here are not obviously high value or fit > for the internet or mobile networks. > > > > Don't get me wrong, i am not in love with the 3GPP and i think there is a > lot to improve on many fronts. But, MAMS and LISP and ILA are not on the > short list of approaches i would hold up the 3GPP and say this is a better > way. In fact, MAMS as a proxy and ILA as a NAT are exactly the legacy > telco stuff i would expect the IETF to work against in favor of a more > secure, more salable, and more end-to-end internet. > > > > AFAIK, FMC is already solved today. My very own iPhone can make calls on > WiFi, LTE, and switch between the 2 -- this is all standard 3GPP work from > IMS. When i sit outside my house with bad wifi, the UE bounces between WiFi > and LTE endlessly, but this unstable network does not interrupt me > streaming Youtube. So, i just don't see a problem to be solved here, > especially if it incurs a great deal of complexity and state and > signalling. That said, MIF and Happy Eyeballs both address this issue of > performance and network selection -- and i would strongly suggest the UE is > in the best position to determine network quality and user experience. > > > > <dl> Not sure I agree with this statement. In LTE, you can determine an > exactl quality (QCI) and setup up both a radio bearer and an IP level > transport profile to guarantee a defined throughput. Today, this only goes > as far as the IMS core, but that is because we have no mechanism to extend > QoS policy and admission beyond the bounds of a single operator. The UE > works with the network, both IP and RAN, to maintain the QoE against the > required level. This then becomes a pure matter of coverage at sufficient > density to ensure quality. > You cannot define throughput in the real world. You can ask for 100mb/s, but if there is only 5mb/s available (for whatever reason), you get 5mb/s. 3GPP is only capable of setting a ceiling QoS, it can never set a floor, because RF is hard. Very hard, so hard that is not reasonable to ever state you can set a quality / speed floor in a terms of service. > > > When you attach to WiFi, all bets are off. The UE is unable to make any > judgement as to the quality of ANY part of the transport, whether RAN or IP > network and service degradation is not graceful. More and more I am > finding LTE much more reliable than local WiFi + wired Internet for voice > calls (plus cheaper – LTE service plans are tending towards free in many > geographies whereas hotels still seem to want to charge HUGE amounts for > bad WiFi). </dl> > This is not correct, the UE absolutely makes actionable quality judgement on network paths today See Apple Wi-Fi assist https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205296 Or selecting based on destination address performance available in DNS with Happy Eyeballs https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-00 MP-TCP https://www.ietfjournal.org/multipath-tcp-deployments/ > > > <dl> Separate item. On the YouTube/CDN side, many operators would like > the ability to be able to offer defined service levels based on content – > we have 9 QCIs in LTE (and more in 5GNR) but we currently only use 2. If > we had the ability to expose the mechanism by which content providers could > offer a better service level across the air-interface, then you could see > the way to a revenue-sharing model between OTTs and MNOs through a > settlement system (much as happens in many other shared networks such as > rail, electricity, gas, water). </dl> > This functionality is already treated by 3GPP PCC functions and deployed broadly. > > I can't get over it this reduction: MAMs adds a proxy and ILA adds a NAT. > I just don't think that is architecturally wise in 4G or 5G. They just > can't scale in a gigabit broadband 5G usecase [which is the usecase that > pays the bills, not the pie in the sky stuff], and don't add meaningful > value, and simply detract value at scale. Also, ILA and MAMs takes a lot > of work on the UE. Getting changes into the UE is very hard, it took 10 > years from the standardization of IMS to get functional IMS client (VoLTE) > deployed at scale. > > > Finally, the 5G ship has already sailed. Many network are "launching 5G" > this year, and more networks (including the one i work at ) are committed > to launching "real 5G" in the next 2 to 3 years. None of the work in this > group is within that 5G scope AFAIK. So, it may be most appropriate to > carry on the effort at 6G to avoid folks getting confused. > > > > <dl> The 5G NR ship may have sailed, but 23.501 is FULL of holes when it > comes to the core network. In fact, 23.501 is proposing using the SAME > protocols and the SAME anchor as in current LTE EPC. My guess is that > we’ll see a 2-step approach to 5G – 5GNR introduced for 2018/2020 > time-frame; 5G New Core in the 2020/2025 time-frame. PLENTY of time for > IETF and 3GPP to fix some of the anchor/latency issues. </dl> > > > > <dl> We should also not lose sight that the things which current EPC does > well (streaming with large packets from centralised CDNs) are in violent > opposition to a number of 5G use-cases such as the transport of very > infrequent, small-sized data such as in IoT. When you have a video segment > comprising many ~1500 Byte payloads, addressing overhead length is > negligible. When you are sending a 2 Byte temperature reading once every 2 > hours and there are 9 or 10 layers of addressing, this becomes very > inefficient. </dl> > > > I do not believe this use case is new or under-served. It would be more helpful to specifically quantify a problem. The description you gave needs a tighter and more specific problem to solve, and it would be helpful to understand how existing approachs (NB-IOT) are insufficient > I still hold out hope for ILNP to replace the mobility core at some future > date, the radio network just does a simple authentication and that is all. > But, that is my own dream of a simpler world :) I would suggest the > standard we look for in this group is: what can we remove from 3GPP 5G / > 6G, not what we can add. How does the work in this group reduce NET > signalling and user-plane modification from the 3GPP steady state? How is > that quantified? > > > > CB > > > > <dl> Side Comment. There is much work here in IDEAS, 5gangip and > netslices which seems to be inter-related and VERY relevant. Somehow, we > need to ensure that the groups work together. I actually think this > problem space is broader than the thee BoFs currently being planned… </dl> > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:53 AM, <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> wrote: > > Dear all, > > We have updated the PS draft on 5G IP issues regarding the planned BoF in > Prague. > > Please check whether we have addressed the comments correctly and continue > to discuss this towards further improvement. > > Thanks a lot – also on behalf of Roland, SungHoon, and Behcet > > > > Best Regards > Dirk > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > Date: Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt > To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, > Roland Schott <roland.schott@telekom.de>, SungHoon Seo <sh.seo@kt.com>, > Roland Schott <Roland.Schott@telekom.de>, Dirk von Hugo < > dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de>, Satish Kanugovi <satish.k@nokia.com> > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-xyx-5gip-ps > Revision: 01 > Title: 5G IP Access and Session Management Protocols > Document date: 2017-05-22 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 14 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01. > txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xyx-5gip-ps/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01 > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01 > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01 > > Abstract: > This document builds upon 5G IP issues work and - based on a > simplified 5G system architecture - attempts to make the case for a > possible set of new protocols that need to be developed to be used > among various virtualized functions in a 5G network. > > > > > 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 > 5gangip@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip > > >
- [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Ca By
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… d.lake
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Ca By
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… d.lake
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Ca By
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… d.lake
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Saleem Bhatti
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Saleem Bhatti
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Saleem Bhatti
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Ca By
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Tom Herbert
- Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for dr… Behcet Sarikaya