Re: [6gip] IP Address Mobility Project

[David Lake <[e-mail]>]

Alex

There is SO much to reply to here but please understand first that we are dealing with a regulated utility business in terms of cellular.

Explanations <DL> in-line </DL>

David

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 09:59
To: Lake, David (PG/R - Comp Sci & Elec Eng) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>, Giles Heron <giles=[e-mail]>, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Sridhar Bhaskaran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [6gip] IP Address Mobility Project


Le 23/02/2023 à 10:27, David Lake a écrit :
> Alex
>
> QCI is set by the network as it is aware of the requirements of the
> application.

Ah the all-knowing network... :-)

Since GPRS and until 4G I used clients on windows to connect to cellular
networks.  All clients offered some parameters for QoS settings on
cellular.  These parameters were never respected, because the network
seemed to know better.

It should be the other way around :-)

<DL> No it shouldn’t.   The network is a service you buy.  It is delivered against an SLA and that SLA is built from the capabilities of the infrastructure, the cost of provision and the sales margin.

You enter into a contract to deliver with the carrier and it is their job to deliver against that contract.  Yes, for the most part the Internet contract just says ‘best efforts’ but that has never been the case with PTT voice and increasingly customers want to buy differentiated services across the network.  And we as an industry want to sell them that because that is where the money is, money we need to invest in new infrastructure.

What SHOULD happen is the same as when you book a parcel to be collected from home – you are given a choice of (in my case) five courier companies including the legacy post office and within each of those various grades of service with all kinds of options.  Against each of those is a price which I pay and then I expect the service to deliver against that outcome.  If that fails, I am recompensed.   Just as with the Internet, there are multiple (often over-lapping) transport elements involved and each are rewarded for their part in the overall SLA. </DL>


> It is not just network capabilities but also the RF numerology.
> VoLTE, for example, travels over a more robust numerology than the
> numerology on the default bearer.  This is why voice over LTE is much
> better in terms of jitter and loss than voice over WhatsApp (for
> example).
>
> Personally, I would like to see the ability to carry out such mapping
>  across the wider Internet - I worked on proposals for H.325 to do
> just that many years ago - not just in the operator/cellular domain
> but as application needs <<<<< available bandwidth (and bandwidth has
> been relatively cheap) we haven't really had to deal with this
> problem.
>
> We absolutely do in cellular because SLAs are based on it.

Carrying out mappings across the wider Internet is a great idea and I
support it.

I understand a little bit VoLTE, yet I dont see precisely why would it
be better than a WhatsApp voice calls, a whatsapp that I understand even
less.

<DL> Because VoLTE packets flow over the Dedicated Bearer whereas everything else flows over the Default Bearer.

You need to revisit RF modulation techniques...  The LTE system uses OFDMA (at least in the downlink – I think it is SC-FDMA in the uplink but someone else will know and the same facts hold true) but each sub-carrier can use a different modulation scheme based on the RF conditions and the requirements of the service.

Some of these modulation schemes are more robust in poor RF conditions but obviously the trade-off is between available bandwidth and use of the sub-carrier(s).

In the case of a VoLTE service, the packets in the media stream are mapped directly to the correct number of sub-carriers with a modulation scheme that is very robust under changing RF conditions so it is possible to offer a GBR (Guaranteed Bit Rate) service (I want to say QPSK for the GBR modulation but I am not 100% sure and I know someone will correct me).

I can’t remember all the details, but when you request a Dedicated Bearer as GBR for voice, you will allocate a certain number of sub-carriers with the most robust modulation scheme based on the overall voice bit-rate (voice codecs being totally deterministic in terms of packetization rate).  There is also no contention onto those sub-carriers because the Traffic Flow Template on the UE and at the eNB ensure that ONLY SIP media traffic flows over them.

In the case of WhatsApp (which also uses SIP), not only are you contending for space on the bearer, you will typically be using the least robust modulation scheme because that is the highest in terms of ‘bandwidth.’

It is very easy to show the impact of the GBR vs non-GBR bearers – get in a car, make a VoLTE call whilst travelling at 50-60km/h and run a ping at the same time.  I can guarantee that, provided you have continuous 4G coverage, the voice call will be perfect – the ping will fail.  Also, the failure-mode of the call will be much more defined – cliff-edge effect for voice, randomly lost packets for the ping.   For rich media/high-quality audio cliff-edge is much more preferable to the lost-packet/jitter scenario.

VoLTE is a specific use-case of IMS – in theory, I could build a GBR service for ANY 5-tuple with a range of QCIs simply by defining the modulation on the sub-carriers and aggregating them up to the total number in the channel but that would leave me without any space for Default Bearer services.

It is impossible for any end-point to set ‘QoS’ at this low radio level.  This is a network feature which is an exact trade-off between quality and quantity. </DL>

I would like to know whether both VoLTE and WhatsApp work ok on IPv6 or
not.  The latter <(whatsapp) I can check myself right now, but the
former no - VoLTE is a concept bound to a particular operator, if I
understand correctly.  I am not at that operator.

<DL> You cannot see the VoLTE packets as an end user.  Whether they use IPv4, IPv6 or any other protocol is really irrelevant. </DL>


That means that I can try right away a handover of an ongoing whatsapp
call between wifi and 4G.  I can show right away whether it breaks or
not.  If it breaks, I can formulate right away a requirement for it not
to break.  If it keeps up, but there are some audio glitches, then I can
formulate a requirement for these glitches to go away.

<DL> “… I can formulate a requirement for these glitches” No you can’t.  You have NO control as an end-user over the direction of flow of the packets associated with the media stream over the air interface.  Of course WhatsApp will work as you switch from 802.11 to LTE and back but just as the default bearer in LTE has no QoS, current 802.11 (other than WiFi6) has no concept of RF capabilities.

And even with WiFi6, who determines which packets travel on the robust modulation items?  You’d just end up with everything being marked ‘high-priority’ and there would be much less bandwidth to share – self-defeating.

And be VERY careful what you mean by ‘break.’  This is down to the use case – if I’m accompanying a singer/soloist over an LTE service (which I often do), then what is important for me is utter stability – jitter, lost packets or changes of codec are an utter nightmare because my brain is already very busy reading music, playing the piano.  I really don’t have many more cycles left to second-guess that lost note or slight change in tempo introduced by a bit of packet buffering.  In that case, actually VoLTE is very, very good.

But if I’m talking to someone where 30% of speech is silence and the brain is excellent at in-filling words then the occasional glitch on VoIP services such as WhatsApp is probably acceptable (although for me, very annoying!) </DL>


For VoLTE I cant do any of these immediately obvious steps.

But I can agree with you, based on trust, that probably VoLTE is a great
performing tool.

<DL> It is and I think we would be churlish to think it is anything but.  What I think we need in future 6G networks is a domain-independent way of extending the concept of SLAs that is implied by IMS across the whole of the Internet so that we offer differentiated services both for technical and commercial reasons.   But we need to do that in an inter-operable and open manner, not the closed-world of 3GPP, IMvHO. </DL>


Alex

>
> David
>
> Sent from Outlook for iOS <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo0ukef&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HoBefsDYohturBHlD2kNuqh05DMNMON0GvxfntMYRMk%3D&reserved=0>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
*From:* Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2023 9:12:36 AM *To:* Sridhar
> Bhaskaran <[e-mail]> *Cc:* Hesham ElBakoury
> <[e-mail]>; Lake, David (PG/R - Comp Sci & Elec Eng)
> <[e-mail]>; Giles Heron
> <giles=[e-mail]>; Toerless Eckert
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]> *Subject:* Re: [6gip]
> IP Address Mobility Project For the traffic class mutability: the
> routers in an xGPP (3GPP) network are all under the same authority.
> This means that that authority can easily configure all intermediary
> routers to not touch on the traffic class.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 23/02/2023 à 05:00, Sridhar Bhaskaran a écrit :
>>> Are there proposals to replace GTP?
>>
>> <SB> See 3GPP TR 29.892 -
>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2Farchive%2F29_series%2F29.892%2F29892-g00.zip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuwvK9L67cZ8kRB2wC6XOTItsSxI73%2F8HofT%2BGscKuU%3D&reserved=0
>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2Farchive%2F29_series%2F29.892%2F29892-g00.zip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuwvK9L67cZ8kRB2wC6XOTItsSxI73%2F8HofT%2BGscKuU%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2Farchive%2F29_series%2F29.892%2F29892-g00.zip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuwvK9L67cZ8kRB2wC6XOTItsSxI73%2F8HofT%2BGscKuU%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3gpp.org%2Fftp%2FSpecs%2Farchive%2F29_series%2F29.892%2F29892-g00.zip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuwvK9L67cZ8kRB2wC6XOTItsSxI73%2F8HofT%2BGscKuU%3D&reserved=0>>
>> SRv6 was proposed and the outcome of the study is in this TR. After
>> this IETF DMM worked on this draft independently -
>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pWTB3U4xzcQq7AFsMcsjdG4B5dOw%2F0ITH77XHq4psDI%3D&reserved=0
>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pWTB3U4xzcQq7AFsMcsjdG4B5dOw%2F0ITH77XHq4psDI%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pWTB3U4xzcQq7AFsMcsjdG4B5dOw%2F0ITH77XHq4psDI%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972013624%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pWTB3U4xzcQq7AFsMcsjdG4B5dOw%2F0ITH77XHq4psDI%3D&reserved=0>>
>>
>>
>>> I can say that QoS can also be done with flow labels and traffic
>>>
>> classes
>>> in IPv6 headers, without GTP.
>> <SB> Flow labels and traffic classes can be changed by on path IP
>> devices (routers etc). 3GPP endpoints require an unmodified flow
>> identifier. That is why they keep the flow identifier in additional
>>  layer of encapsulation (i.e in GTP header). The flow identifier
>> marked by the first 3GPP entrypoint gateway (UPF) is kept all the
>> way upto radio network in the downlink direction so that, radio
>> network can directly use that as index to look up the resource
>> allocation scheme / scheduler and RRM details. For certain services
>> like voice media (which is marked by QOS flow identifier
>> corresponding to QCI/5QI 1), mission critical services (QFI --> 5QI
>> --> 69) etc, strict SLAs are there. Network cant afford to let on
>> path routers meddle with QoS flow markers.
>>
>> Regards Sridhar On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:16 AM Alexandre Petrescu
>>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
>>
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 22/02/2023 à 19:43, Hesham ElBakoury a écrit :
>>
>> I can try to find that out.  I remember some relatively recent
>> presentations at IETF about replacing GTP, or reducing the number
>> of headers.  It might have been in the (precursor?) of the DMM WG.
>> (distributed mobility mgmt).
>>
>> A related question, IMHO, would be too whether there is an RFC for
>> GTP in a first place...
>>
>> I can remember an Internet Draft of year 2000 about GTP - named
>> simply draft-casati-gtp - but it was not pursued at IETF.
>>
>> If there were a GTP RFC, then we could think about improving it,
>> replacing it, etc.
>>
>> When there is no GTP RFC, one can think about what should an ideal
>> xGPP (3GPP) network use instead.
>>
>> Or maybe another way...
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 10:39 AM Alexandre Petrescu
>>> <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> David, Giles,
>>>
>>> Le 22/02/2023 à 14:35, David Lake a écrit :
>>>> This:
>>>>
>>>> “…the 5G UPF terminates the GTP tunnel but also does QoS,
>> charging,
>>>> lawful intercept etc. ”
>>>>
>>>> … is a VERY important point.  GTP enables a number of very
>> low-level
>>>> RF features which MNOs need to control their allocation of
>> spectrum
>>>> and more importantly the numerology associated with an
>> application.
>>>> It is also used in shared solutions such a CoMP.
>>>
>>> I can agree with the importance of the point above.  I can
>> agree about
>>> improvements there might be necessary.
>>>
>>> I can say that QoS can also be done with flow labels and
>> traffic classes
>>> in IPv6 headers, without GTP.
>>>
>>
>>> But I agree with the importance of the topic.
>>>
>>>> If we are to replace GTP (and I think there is a reason to
>> do that)
>>>> we have to provide the interactions to the layer 1 that
>> MNOs need.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> [...] Giles said:
>>>> I’m not sure that your electricity analysis is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Doing e.g. an MPLS exact match lookup across a FIB with a few
>>>> thousand labels rather than an IPv6 longest-match lookup
>> across a FIB
>>>> with a few million prefixes, for example, may well more
>> than offset
>>>> the extra electricity consumption caused by the extra 4
>> bytes of
>>>> header.
>>>>
>>>> And then of course there’s all the electricity consumed by the
>>>> control plane updates hitting the router CPUs.
>>>
>>> I can agree.  But I do not take that as an invitation to ignore
>>> electricity consumption.  Rather, all points you mention
>> (exact match
>>> lookup consumption, ctl plane) should be measured and told
>> who consumes
>>> more, and then decide what to reduce.
>>>
>>> I do not take your remark as giving up electricity savings in
>> front of
>>> too much complexity of understanding what's happening.
>>>
>>> I do not take your remark as freedom to add more headers when
>> it becomes
>>> necessary to add more functionality.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> More details about this performance degradation can be
>> provided if
>>>>> absolutely necessary, but some times trust might also
>> help for a
>>>>> quicker understanding towards realizing a common goal.  (the
>>>>> development of trust is another matter that we can discuss
>>>>> separately :-)
>>>>
>>>> Trust takes time to earn, and I’d tend to suggest that
>> arguing that
>>>> it makes sense to inject a host route for a UE into OSPF
>> may not be
>>>> the best way to earn it.
>>>
>>> Given this apparent disparate understanding about routing -
>> you seem to
>>> be more people to be saying the contrary of what I say - I
>> give up this
>>> topic discussion on host based routes.  Maybe for later for
>> another G,
>>> maybe never.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> -- 6gip mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
>>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>>
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0>>
>>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>>
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 6gip mailing list [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
>> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2F6gip&data=05%7C01%7Cd.lake%40surrey.ac.uk%7C2fd12d6c763c49615b9108db1584b5fa%7C6b902693107440aa9e21d89446a2ebb5%7C0%7C1%7C638127431972169852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSGg8LIU9jtDRaQweXR3%2FSlRD5EKKM6X7PhJgr1Tk50%3D&reserved=0>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- o__ _>  /__ (_) \(_)... Burn fat not fuel - Bike along to a
>> healthier life and cleaner world! :)
>>
>> Sridhar Bhaskaran
>>