Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope?
"Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <sanjay.wadhwa@nokia.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 10:17 UTC
Return-Path: <sanjay.wadhwa@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: bcause@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bcause@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A824B1202DD for <bcause@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NuLbOPwZDbbc for <bcause@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR03-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db5eur03on070c.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe0a::70c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CCCC120303 for <bcause@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=l46pZ55jlniu9ErVuiY9eVcz9SlQE3WUrlMASRRHqyU=; b=FEur8drkEo6i/2b7fVg6kyZzDQzAR97nh3drBjPUID2OmZIFcLlAFLJHzwaCh+UVaHAOrPratJneIg0vl+em+ab5b9zDEnvn7d4R0uGSSPeyIElHZvXV8DOg+fDl6j30RPJSg5bIURGT4r9Q+CE691L0Y3L83jRhu1Wro2EFFtw=
Received: from AM0PR07MB5361.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.82.211) by AM0SPR01MB0033.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.135.152.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.9; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:16:51 +0000
Received: from AM0PR07MB5361.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::acff:8166:ab70:3a5b]) by AM0PR07MB5361.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::acff:8166:ab70:3a5b%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.013; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:16:51 +0000
From: "Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <sanjay.wadhwa@nokia.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>
CC: "bcause@ietf.org" <bcause@ietf.org>, "eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <fuyou.miao@huawei.com>, "gdalle@juniper.net" <gdalle@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope?
Thread-Index: AQHU0o1Aj9zlGKqs70ayxlNJjebolaYdyAaAgAAISICAAAEhIA==
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:16:51 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR07MB5361D06C1A4775BBCB4A88D2FB5F0@AM0PR07MB5361.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4c42b485-0798-50c4-b62e-501dff12c914@nokia.com> <CA+RyBmWp8HuDt31o_gtBELaE5=D06Yqe1zxpdigjORJDfwa8=Q@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR05MB3360D79E90DD1E04E4EB418AD35E0@MWHPR05MB3360.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmV8s=5e6CJ99ETFJdun+hg-ELVoNcm7CB5pcQSvJGM5jw@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR0102MB3075998181DD211CF943C4AFEB5F0@AM0PR0102MB3075.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> <B3F7E76E-D937-45DE-8004-A65414D848DD@nokia.com> <CA+RyBmWBZiXvv7Zqp=vpdGg8q_R-SJi87Zk1juqkyqNhs6-k5g@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29292CCAF@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE29292CCAF@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sanjay.wadhwa@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [31.133.146.245]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 43fe2aa1-5079-48a6-9363-08d6b1d42a3f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600127)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0SPR01MB0033;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0SPR01MB0033:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0SPR01MB0033DB73D6A74F07D069013FFB5F0@AM0SPR01MB0033.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 09888BC01D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(376002)(346002)(199004)(189003)(53754006)(476003)(5660300002)(14454004)(54896002)(6306002)(55016002)(9686003)(33656002)(7736002)(229853002)(7696005)(966005)(93886005)(99286004)(4326008)(71190400001)(53946003)(106356001)(71200400001)(6246003)(3846002)(790700001)(606006)(6116002)(25786009)(105586002)(97736004)(6636002)(26005)(316002)(86362001)(186003)(102836004)(74316002)(478600001)(446003)(68736007)(81156014)(110136005)(486006)(11346002)(66066001)(30864003)(54906003)(8936002)(256004)(6436002)(236005)(6506007)(8676002)(14444005)(53546011)(81166006)(53936002)(52536014)(76176011)(2906002)(559001)(569006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0SPR01MB0033; H:AM0PR07MB5361.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: nztwW4NzsLRniTM1PDWQqsPtXXF/7BJ/LhVDnFWcoAHBU2wYOVDxmR8eVRxLhmVyq+T0a05zjuyo9WNlwXqTSjkv7ryb9Ry55P8Km/M/kY5NxFrFq5jvqShzt6WeMbBvKk7O0FCoG9J+lkF3PMqY7OoS1B4VPUjaVcHq1NnCCQieqgpx2babci3KQgx113d3HpFBlvsLbmEojbCA8bHmqD/grCIGZeV+M+rRBOKQdJ7N5CQosuEpyuH9OCq06KGvNb76BzNyZqSG1FH5LVl1JF+P/VBhECn1jmIj7LfRG+6Y3uzMvjG4d/PU/Jii+Y+RtEXf1lGHHYSqOiYYa+IKIEB5Njf3ebJGZzDUuZzmubvvEhw+yyZyHSkEB2M83DhcOL7hhyRtoYAx7X4Zl7Fh1JI/CtasFpM8Uo+lbAObtEY=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR07MB5361D06C1A4775BBCB4A88D2FB5F0AM0PR07MB5361eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 43fe2aa1-5079-48a6-9363-08d6b1d42a3f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Mar 2019 10:16:51.8906 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0SPR01MB0033
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bcause/lxgR5Iu6m_onOQzP2II26k0dxe0>
Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope?
X-BeenThere: bcause@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bcause.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bcause>, <mailto:bcause-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bcause/>
List-Post: <mailto:bcause@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bcause-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bcause>, <mailto:bcause-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:17:02 -0000
The idea is to define applicability matrix for IEs and then define needed extensions to current IEs or new IEs. The messages are largely applicable as one would notice. We have looked at applicability for BNG and identified extensions. We intend to expeditiously bring this as formal contribution to start discussions. -Sanjay From: bcause <bcause-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mach Chen Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 3:00 AM To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Cc: bcause@ietf.org; eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org; Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <fuyou.miao@huawei.com>; gdalle@juniper.net Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Hi all, I just had a quick look at the PFCP protocol, seems that the messages and IEs(TLVs) are designed to couple with the specific interfaces (Sxa, Sxb, Sx, N4), if we are going to consider BNG, AGF, FMIF, xxxF…., more interfaces will be introduced, does it mean that for each new added interface, it has to verify whether all the existing IEs can be applied to the new interfaces, and then update the protocol accordingly. In addition, for a new added IE, it seems that it needs to verify whether this IE can be applied to the existing interfaces and protocol updated also needed. I am not an 3GPP expert, I am just curious whether the above is the case? FYI, below are two tables that I just copied from PFCP protocol. Message Type value (Decimal) Message Applicability Sxa Sxb Sxc N4 0 Reserved PFCP Node related messages 1 PFCP Heartbeat Request X X X X 2 PFCP Heartbeat Response X X X X 3 PFCP PFD Management Request - X X X 4 PFCP PFD Management Response - X X X 5 PFCP Association Setup Request X X X X 6 PFCP Association Setup Response X X X X 7 PFCP Association Update Request X X X X 8 PFCP Association Update Response X X X X 9 PFCP Association Release Request X X X X 10 PFCP Association Release Response X X X X 11 PFCP Version Not Supported Response X X X X 12 PFCP Node Report Request X X X X 13 PFCP Node Report Response X X X X Octet 1 and 2 Application ID's PFDs IE Type = 58 (decimal) Octets 3 and 4 Length = n Information elements P Condition / Comment Appl. IE Type Sxa Sxb Sxc N4 Application ID M This IE shall identify the Application ID for which PFDs shall be provisioned in the UP function. - X X X Application ID PFD C This IE shall be present if the PFD needs to be provisioned in the UP function. When present, it shall describe the PFD to be provisioned in the UP function. Several IEs with the same IE type may be present to provision multiple PFDs for this Application ID. When this IE is absent, the UP function shall delete all the PFDs received and stored earlier in the UP function for this Application ID. - X X X PFD From: bcause [mailto:bcause-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:31 PM To: Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com>> Cc: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>>; bcause@ietf.org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org>; eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <fuyou.miao@huawei.com<mailto:fuyou.miao@huawei.com>> Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Hi Wim, I'll note that applicability of PFCP in AGF CUPS and FMIF CUPS still under investigation. And one of the questions to be answered is Why 3GPP narrowed the scope of applicability of PFCP in 5G comparing to LTE? It may be the case that only introduction of the new IEs would not be sufficient to address all the requirements of DBNG CUPS and some architectural, e.g. FSM, changes may be needed. Would 3GPP accept such changes or will consider this as the new, different from PFCP protocol and decide not to own it? Regards, Greg On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:23 AM Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@nokia.com>> wrote: To shime in here From: bcause <bcause-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bcause-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <fuyou.miao@huawei.com<mailto:fuyou.miao@huawei.com>> Date: Tuesday, 26 March 2019 at 10:14 To: "eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org>" <eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>, "gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>" <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>, "gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>" <gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>> Cc: "bcause@ietf.org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org>" <bcause@ietf.org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org>>, "Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? It really dpends on how much of PFCP could be reused.. There are fundemental differences between mobile use case and BNG. For example, layer 2 (pppoe) vs. layer 3 (GTP) access, reliability model, accounting model. There should be thorough analysis, which is not available yet. WH> PFCP will need to be extended anyhow for AGF, etc use case in BBF and also 3GPP decided to have L2 PDU, so these extension are already on the table. All the packet rules/qos rules and charging can be reused. On top the protocol is hardened in 3GPP networks today and scale well beyond what is needed in the fixed world. We benefit from all this work and serve the industry a service rather than trying to reinventing something new and only serve 1 use case. My prediction is, even it can be done with PFCP, it will take long time to get the spec out. Besides technical problems to solve, spec definition with PFCP has to depend on liaison (slow in nature) between IETF and 3GPP, to get work really done finally in 3GPP. 3GPP is currently focusing on 5G spec, I suspect it be willing/able to do it with extra bandwidth. WH> We already checked with our 3GPP people and the protocol can be extendable easily based on codepoint assignment. 发件人:eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf..org<mailto:40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org> <eduard.metz=40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40kpn.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 收件人:gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com> <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>;gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net> <gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>> 抄 送:bcause@ietf.org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org> <bcause@ietf.org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org>>;martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> 时间:2019-03-26 09:47:34 主 题:Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Not sure I understand this, would in this case introducing PCFP for CUPS (FN only) be more expensive than introducing a new protocol for CUPS (FN only)? cheers, Eduard From: bcause <bcause-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bcause-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky Sent: maandag 25 maart 2019 20:43 To: Gregory Dalle (gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>) <gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>> Cc: bcause@ietf..org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org>; Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Hi Greg D., thank you for consideration. The situation for the FN-only operators, as I understand it, is complicated by the insistence that only PFCP-based solution to CUPS will likely be standardized. As I have explained, for operator that has it's fixed and mobile networks operated separately introduction of the new protocol, PFCP in this case, will result in the increased OPEX. I would consider that as no-starer offer from any vendor. Regards, Greg M On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 20:23 Gregory Dalle <gdalle@juniper.net<mailto:gdalle@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Greg M, Commenting back on: “we have heard from several operators that they are interested only in FN (fixed network) DBNG CUPS (….) I don't think that requests by these operators should be ignored”. From what I can track on this mailing list: 1. 2 operators said they are interested only in fixed access BNG 2. 5 operators said they don’t want to restrict the protocol discussion to fixed access only The good news is that these 2 operators are not ignored, as the goal is provide a superset that includes support for basic TR178 BNG as they want. Thanks, Greg D From: bcause <bcause-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bcause-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 9:20 AM To: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> Cc: bcause@ietf..org<mailto:bcause@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Hi Martin, et al., I'd not discuss whether PFCP can be extended to suit yet undocumented DBNG CUPS requirements without changes to its architecture. Many stated that they believe that that is achievable and I'm not to argue with what people believe or don't believe in. I just want to point out that we have heard from several operators that they are interested only in FN (fixed network) DBNG CUPS. I interpret that these operators have and want to keep their fixed and mobile networks operated separately. And even though PFCP may be already is familiar to the operations team that manages their mobile network, introducing the new protocol into the operation of the fixed network will increase their operational cost. More so, operators that are not looking to introduce hybrid access or 5G FMC at any time soon may have a preference on which protocol selection as that is the reflection of their operational model. I don't think that requests by these operators should be ignored and the answer given by SDOs include only PFCP-based DBNG CUPS. I've participated in the discussion and contributed to the charter. The charter intended to work on FN-only DBNG CUPS first and deliver results quickly. Adding hybrid access and 5G FMC could be discussed later, including, based on findings by experts at BBF. Regards, Greg On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> wrote: Hello, as you might know, the RTGWG has hosted, for some time now, a set of documents that relate to the separation of the user plane and control plane of Broadband Network Gateways. These documents can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rtgwg/documents/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_group_rtgwg_documents_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=96SauSW0hDod15fcQ8L7ylDy5HchcDuklDH6996dPic&e=> and start with draft-cuspdt-* or draft-wadhwa-* Please read them if you haven't already. Recently, a group of persons has worked together and produced few paragraphs in support of their willingness to see a working group on this topic formed. Considering this, I am sharing this text with the IETF community in order to evaluate * the wider interest in, and willingness to work on, this topic, * the appropriateness of creating a focussed and short-lived working group (as opposed to continuing in rtgwg). To that effect, please read and comment on the text further down, it is here for being debated. As a matter of clarification: me sharing it, instead of the authors doing it, does not carry any special meaning. Important note: this topic has its roots in BroadBand Forum (BBF) with which IETF has exchanged few liaisons on the topic recently. These are important reads: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1619/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_liaison_1619_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=WR5EeaTa7vVKvnvgUSwSif_tFMJATrrdUp85D9Wauww&e=> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1615/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_liaison_1615_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=0siKbwwdh2W6FBBMHKJid3k-SaVYNP1bfqYkVAZMWWU&e=> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1600/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_liaison_1600_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=ntY5jLiyuv6zQcLI7sHo0U-_oSajcmPcqdSQViQ7FAY&e=> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1566/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_liaison_1566_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=8AnBB1mLQepiil0dgmBKNL1NDtxWktzl2IOEZ9XXNyI&e=> --- Current Broadband Network Gateways (BNGs) that terminate residential broadband subscribers at the edge of service provider networks run as an integrated system where both the subscriber management control plane and traffic forwarding user plane are combined in a single system. In a large network, where the subscriber density is high, it is better to distribute and locate BNG systems closer to the subscribers, especially when the content caches are distributed to reduce backhaul costs and latency. In this scenario, as the BNG footprint grows, the subscriber management control points also proliferate, increasing operational complexity. This trend motivates the broadband network access industry to adopt new architectures that take advantage of the increasing ability to disaggregate and virtualize appropriate network access functions. Additional benefits can be realized by separating subscriber management control plane (CP) and traffic forwarding user plane (UP) for BNGs (referred to as Control and User Plane Separation (CUPS)). That simplifies operations, provides independent location, and scaling for CP and UP functions. A single CP function, running as a centralized VNF, can control and manage multiple UP instances, which may be distributed and separated from the CP via a multi-hop L2 or L3 network. CUPS requires protocols for communication between CP and UP instances: from the CP to the UP to create and manage subscriber state instances and from the UP to the CP to handle relevant solicited or unsolicited events. The proposed Working Group is a narrowly scoped WG tasked to specify communication protocol(s) between the CP and UP of a BNG, a network element whose functions are defined by BBF. A BNG can deliver broadband services to subscriber over wireline access or over multiple access types to accommodate different deployments. The goal of the WG is to define protocol(s) for CUPS that may support multiple deployment scenarios for the BNG. The scope of the work covers protocol requirements, specification of the communications protocol, the information elements to be transferred with that protocol, and YANG data model(s) for Operations and Management as well as security, operational, and transport considerations. --- Thank you Martin -- Bcause mailing list Bcause@ietf.org<mailto:Bcause@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bcause<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bcause&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=S-4EDvyPmus0NS5LXfp-Ms9zGC_m8iVOllO5lcwmVo0&s=H-G297qDrFOH-JKFv25D8NyN-fqntWahhcvLjzO-LWM&e=>
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Joel M. Halpern
- [Bcause] interest and scope? Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- [bcause] 答复: [Bcause] interest and scope? qinfengwei
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Donald Eastlake
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Mach Chen
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? =?utf-8?B?5p2O6JCM6JCM?=
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? huang.guangping
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Miziewicz, Krystof (Nokia - AU/Sydney)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Georgios Karagiannis
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Adrian Farrel
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Yu Tianpeng
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Yu Tianpeng
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Donald Eastlake
- [bcause] 答复: [Bcause] interest and scope? qinfengwei
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Victor Lopez
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? eduard.metz
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Chase, Chris
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Ryan Hoffman
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Diego R. Lopez
- [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Aijun Wang
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? huang.guangping
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Yu Tianpeng
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Rajesh A Shinde
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? KEN KO
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? KEN KO
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Mach Chen
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Mach Chen
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? huang.guangping
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Zongning
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Aijun Wang@China Telecom
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Gregory Dalle
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? Adrian Farrel
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? eduard.metz
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? eduard.metz
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [bcause] interest and scope? Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? David Allan I
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Aijun Wang@China Telecom
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? David Sinicrope
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Mach Chen
- Re: [bcause] [Bcause] interest and scope? Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bcause] 答复: interest and scope? KEN KO