Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

>> Extension headers are end to end constructs and there is no obvious
>> way to limit their scope to a single network (there is a long ongoing
>> discussion about whether they can be inserted by intermediate nodes
>> but the camp that wants that doesn't seem likely prevail). Besides
>> that there is a good chance of packets with extension headers being
>> dropped. Encapsulation is straightforward, can be significantly
>> contained, isn't that much more overhead, and allows the option of
>> other features for the encapsulation (security, fragmentation,
>> checksum help, etc. like in draft-herbert-gue-extensions).
>>
>
> Why end to end is not OK?

Because that would imply that for any host the Internet to talk to a
mobile host it would have to implement the extension header and
mobility protocol. Any solution that requires updating all the hosts
on the Internet to support some functionality is a non-starter.

> Encapsulation is to me defeats the purpose, you tunnel to where? Anchor
> point? Then we have distributed anchors?
>

For a host talking to a UE I would implement encapsulation or ILA from
a carrier's gateway to the eNodeB. Process would look something like:

1) Host sends packet to UE's (virtual) address.
2) Packet routed over Internet to a gateway of the carrier
3) Gateway looks destination in mapping table, returns a locator
(physical address) of UE's current eNodeB
4) Packet is encapsulated (or ILA translated) with destination for eNodeB
5) Packet is routed over RAN to eNobeB
6) At eNodeB remove encpasulation (or reverse translate ILA)
7) Deliver packet to UE. This is now the same packet that the Internet
host sent.


                                                   ←----
Encapsulation/ILA path---->
                            _______                              _____
+-------+               (             )     +-------------+       (
    )     +-----------+     +------+
| Host |--------------(   Internet  )---|  Gateway |------( RAN
)------| Enodeb |-----|  UE  |
+------+                (_______)     +-------------+       (____)
  +-----------+    +-------+

Packets in the reverse direction, from UE to Host should need any
encapsulation or ILA. The can be sent as is and just following routing
to get to appropriate egress gateway.

When a UE moves to a new UE all the mapping tables need to be updated
this will take time. To mitigate that hit, I would probably place a
COA at the old eNodeB to forward packets (using encapsulation) to the
new location for some period of time.

Tom

>
>
> Behcet
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Uma]:  Not sure if https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00
>> > has
>> > been discussed. I see it has IPv6 support from beginning..
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 5gangip mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>> >
>
>