Re: [5gangip] Reviewing GTP (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

[Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

I think that there is no sense if its goal is republication of existing 
document (even if it's one of other SDO), but it would be useful if the 
document discribes clarification of issues/problems which GTP has in 
current mobile networks. And, it would be work which should be proceeded 
in 5gangip.

Regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/05/14 19:44, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
> 
> Thank you for having read the draft.
> 
> Le 14/05/2018 à 12:09, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 14 May 2018, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I posted a draft about GTP.
>>>
>>> In order to access the draft one needs IPv6:
>>>
>>> http://petrescu.sandelman.ca/
>>
>> If you're going to make an IETF submission, please post it using the 
>> normal IETF ID way.
>>
>> If you're not making an IETF submission (which you don't seem to be 
>> since you've uploaded IETF draft formatted text to somewhere else), 
>> then please don't bring it up at IETF discussion groups and call it a 
>> "draft".
> 
> Whether or not it becomes an IETF submission depends on the readers.  If 
> enough people show interest then so it will be, otherwise no.
> 
> At this time, I keep it on IPv6 access.
> 
> As for not calling it a 'draft' - it is a good idea.  I will think about 
> it.
> 
>> Also, after reading the document, it's impossible to understand what 
>> you're even trying to do with it, much less what you're trying to 
>> standardize (considering it says "standards track".
> 
> Well, please see below the goals I have with this draft.
> 
> Do you think GTP does not deserve be documented in an Internet Draft?
> 
> The goals:
> 
> GTP is a protocol that is not documented at IETF.  It is described in 
> 3GPP documents.  This lack of IETF documentation generates a lot of 
> problems.
> 
> One such problem immediately visible is the following: people claim 
> IPv6-only access when actually their GTP is on IPv4 and just transports 
> IPv6.
> 
> If there were an IETF document that said that GTP on IPv6 acts this and 
> that way then there would be no confusion.
> 
> For example, we never confuse DHCPv4 for DHCPv6 or vice-versa, nor RIPng 
> for RIP, nor ND for ARP,  because we have distinct IETF documents for each.
> 
> Another aspect that may be interesting is the following: IANA reserves a 
> port number for GTP, but GTP is not specified at IETF.  This would 
> probably be clarified, _if_ there were a document.
> 
> As for the 'Standards Track' intention - I think it would be the right 
> track because GTP is in widespread use.  It is true that GTP-IPv6 is not 
> deployed anywhere, and that would not make it even a 'Proposed Standard' 
> status.  But in order to understand that, then one may need to 
> understand what is GTP-IPv6 first.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip


-- 
----------------------------------
Shunsuke Homma
<[e-mail]>
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
----------------------------------