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

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

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 indicated https://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]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip




_______________________________________________

5gangip mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip