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> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Ca By <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> 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 mailing list
> > 5gangip@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
> >
>