Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thank you Dirk,
>
> Yes that presentation made by George has much encouraged ietf community.
> Other key facts which the justification text mentioned are following:
>
> o IAB statement on IPv6
>   https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/
>
> o IPv6 deployment measurement
>   http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/
>
> We can see big number of adoption rate for cellular operators especially
> in US. T-Mobile US and Verizon Wireless exceed 80%, 47.51% for ATT
> Wireless, and 59% for Sprint Wireless.
>
>
All these look good but my question is what can 3GPP CTs (CT3, etc.) do
about it?
I guess this was behind you WID and not SRv6 for 5G?

Regards,
Behcet

> Cheers,
> --satoru
>
>
> > 2017/10/19 2:17、<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> のメール:
> >
> > Dear all,
> > I completely agree that we (i.e. at IETF community) should start work on
> potential protocol or framework solutions for 3GPP - even before 5G
> requirements (in architecture documents) are fully specified which as Georg
> in Prague pointed out https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> meeting/99/materials/slides-99-edu-sessk-3gpp-ietf-collaboration-on-5g/
> is expected for end of this year.
> > And I also think that a major role will play Identity / Locator
> Separated protocols like LISP, ILNP, ILA ... supporting multiple types of
> mobility by choosing correspondingly adapted configurations ... which would
> fit to service-tailored network slicing ideas.
> > Thanks!
> > Best Regards
> > Dirk
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Satoru
> Matsushima
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 11:11
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP
> >
> > Behcet, David, and Uma,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments. Those are really informative. And yes I
> agree that we need to work with 3GPP. That’s why the WID out there.
> >
> > While there’s no clear facts on future networking in 5G, I wrote up the
> text in justification with facts which at least IPv6 adoption has been
> growth and IAB recommend SDOs to review existing standards work in
> IPv6-only environment.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --satoru
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 2017/10/18 6:52、[e-mail]のメール:
> >>
> >> Uma
> >>
> >> I agree that X2 is a complication but this is only used temporarily to
> provide a fast switch-over during a mobility event.  In terms of end-to-end
> communication, even during an X2 event, the topology and use of a tunnel
> anchored at the centre remains.
> >>
> >> The issue is not the protocol but the time the underlying equipment
> takes to update the tunnel path.
> >>
> >> At the moment (note – AT THE MOMENT!) the use-case which requires the
> most expeditious switch-over and is least tolerant to packet drops due to
> mobility events is VoLTE and it survives very well in current S1 and X2
> handover systems.
> >>
> >> I think this - “I am not sure who is “we”  (I would see that as
> 3GPP).”   - may be where we are struggling!  Until we have a use-case which
> patently fails using the current anchored GTP system, we are going to find
> it very hard to have an alternative solution considered.
> >>
> >> We need to work with 3GPP on this….
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: 17 October 2017 14:39
> >> To: Lake D Mr (PG/R - Elec Electronic Eng) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP
> >>
> >> David,
> >>
> >> Agree mostly on what you said.  2 comments though..
> >>
> >>
> >>> Mobility events are handled quickly and with minimal packet loss
> >>
> >> I don’t think so. It’s an overhead for RAN mobility (X2 tunnels
> creation and additional control signalling for the same) and similar
> complication for UPF mobility.
> >>
> >>> However, for NEW 5G use-cases such as Ultra-Low Latency and edge-based
> services we should be considering whether GTP is the correct choice
> provided we can meet the commercial and regulatory requirements of the MNOs
> in terms of LI and charging.
> >>
> >> I am not sure who is “we”  (I would see that as 3GPP).
> >>
> >>
> >> But it’s good to put proposals  to show what layer 3 mobility entails
> -  like the one Bob mentioned below or  what Dino indicatedhttps://
> www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/5gangip/current/msg00571.html
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Uma C.
> >>
> >> From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:15 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> This is the key statement for me:
> >>
> >> “A study group would have to work out what services GTP provides”
> >>
> >> Both in this group and related efforts (e.g. IDEAS at IETF, NGP at
> ETSI), we need to consider how it is that mobile networks are built.
> >>
> >> In terms of P2P, traffic on today’s mobile networks is predominantly
> anchored at a central point, not P2P despite the associated engineering
> inefficiencies.   There are very good reasons for this:
> >>
> >>      • It makes LI very easy to implement
> >>      • It makes association of traffic with user clear allowing simple
> billing mechanisms
> >>      • Mobility events are handled quickly and with minimal packet loss
> >>
> >> In terms of the major use-cases today (voice over LTE and mobile
> broadband) as they move to 5G, I really don’t see any need to change the
> underlying tunnelling protocol because It Works.
> >>
> >> However, for NEW 5G use-cases such as Ultra-Low Latency and edge-based
> services we should be considering whether GTP is the correct choice
> provided we can meet the commercial and regulatory requirements of the MNOs
> in terms of LI and charging.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> From: 5gangip [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert
> Moskowitz
> >> Sent: 17 October 2017 05:52
> >> To: [e-mail]; Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [5gangip] To initiate user-plane study work in 3GPP
> >>
> >> Behcet and Satoru,
> >>
> >> Last year I did a study of GTPv1U and worked out a different approach
> that would better support P2P communications without the need of a home
> proxy agent.  You can see part of it in:
> >>
> >> draft-moskowitz-hip-ipnhip-02.txt
> >>
> >> But I learned that there is tremendous resistance to any change away
> from GTP, even a partial change.  A study group would have to work out what
> services GTP provides.  Which services it does well and which it does
> poorly.  Then how to better meet the service needs today and going forward.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> On 10/16/2017 04:12 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >> Hi Satoru,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the info.
> >>
> >> Can you please explain the objective items in your WID?
> >>
> >> It seems like according to TR 29.891 that you mentioned, Release 15
> user plane protocol is GTPv1U and control plane protocol for SBA is HTTP.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Behcet
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Satoru Matsushima <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >> FYI. I’d submit a contribution to propose a new study item which is to
> initiate user-plane protocol study work in 3GPP CT4 WG.
> >>
> >> http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/WG4_protocollars_ex-CN4/
> TSGCT4_80_Kochi/Docs/C4-175098.zip
> >>
> >> Please take a look at the doc from above link. I'd appreciate any your
> support if you think it makes sense.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> --satoru
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>