Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt

Ca

This is an interesting comment from you:

“Tom -- as a network operator, my ideal scenario just moves the packets.  To that end, i would like to remove the anchor / touchpoint.”

What I’m hearing from many operators is that they want to be MORE than just moving packets as moving packets is commodity/utility.

They are looking for mechanisms where they can deliver specific content and find new revenue streams especially as they try to finance new-build of 5G.

My own (very personal) thought is that we are probably moving back to single-infrastructure models with multiple content providers (exact ownership model is unimportant in this context) where the customer interaction is with the service/content owner (which could be a Telco/SP) and there is a settlement between the content owners/providers and the transport provider.

There is certainly a lot of concern about the long-term viability of Telco businesses in the current model as ARPUs tends lower.

Is this state-of-affairs different to what you’re seeing?

Thanks

David

From: 5gangip [mailto:5gangip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
Sent: 24 May 2017 13:32
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: 5gangip@ietf.org; Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
Subject: Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:32 PM Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com<mailto:tom@herbertland.com>> wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com<mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

Hi Ca,

Can you explain why you think ILA doesn't scale to gigabit broadband?

ILA requires no changes to UEs and it's already being deployed in
datacenters at higher bandwidths than gigabit. It's more efficient
than encapsulation in both on the wire overhead and processing
overhead.

Tom

Tom -- as a network operator, my ideal scenario just moves the packets.  To that end, i would like to remove the anchor / touchpoint.

The scaling comment is that any anchor needs to scale to N where N is some set of users total throughput. This is why ILNP appeals to me and ILA looks like more of what we already have today with less functionality.

> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:53 AM, <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>>, Tom Herbert
>> <tom@herbertland.com<mailto:tom@herbertland.com>>, Roland Schott <roland.schott@telekom.de<mailto:roland.schott@telekom.de>>, SungHoon
>> Seo <sh.seo@kt.com<mailto:sh.seo@kt.com>>, Roland Schott <Roland.Schott@telekom.de<mailto:Roland.Schott@telekom.de>>, Dirk von Hugo
>> <dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de<mailto:dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de>>, Satish Kanugovi <satish.k@nokia.com<mailto: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<http://tools.ietf.org>.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 5gangip mailing list
>> 5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> 5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>