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

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:uma.chunduri@huawei.com]
Sent: 17 October 2017 14:39
To: Lake D Mr (PG/R - Elec Electronic Eng) <d.lake@surrey.ac.uk>; rgm@htt-consult.com; sarikaya@ieee.org; satoru.matsushima@gmail.com
Cc: 5gangip@ietf.org
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 indicated https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/5gangip/current/msg00571.html

--
Uma C.

From: 5gangip [mailto:5gangip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of d.lake@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:d.lake@surrey.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 2:15 PM
To: rgm@htt-consult.com<mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com>; sarikaya@ieee.org<mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>; satoru.matsushima@gmail.com<mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
Cc: 5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
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:5gangip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz
Sent: 17 October 2017 05:52
To: sarikaya@ieee.org<mailto:sarikaya@ieee.org>; Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com<mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>>
Cc: 5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
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 <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com<mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>> 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
5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip

_______________________________________________

5gangip mailing list

5gangip@ietf.org<mailto:5gangip@ietf.org>

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