Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Praveen,
I'm not sure what in the history of CR-LDP vs. RSVP-TE you see as a
mistake. From the technical point and in my opinion, CR-LDP had advantages
over RSVP-TE and its demise, as I recall, was not for only technical
reasons. Yes, one can say that it was the market that sealed the fate of
CR-LDP and the products that were based on it. Then how that will be the
mistake? Or you refer to the fact that CR-LDP was canceled too early? Just
curious.

Regards,
Greg

PS. I'm not supportive of the idea to select one "champion" protocol among
several offered by their respective design teams. I'm more inclined to give
the protocols evenly leveled starting position and let the Market work its
magic.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:08 PM Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> We should also learn from our past mistakes (CR-LDP) and NOT have
> competing solutions and confuse industry  and eventually deprecating it.
> In mobile world too, having PMIP as S5/s8 was short term benefit for some
> CDMA operators and eventually it didn’t help them while doing long term
> roaming scenarios.
>
>                Just as much as  fixed BNG UPF will be used for PPPoE
> sessions it can be used for fixed wireless (5G) which will be using SBA
> architecture defined by 3GPP for residential broadband use case ( No FMC as
> bonding case).  So in that regard, BBF taking up the study and getting us
> clear guidance is reasonable proposal and that too if it’s a matter of few
> months.
>
>
>
> -Praveen
>
>
>
> *From:* Liang GENG <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2019 1:41 AM
> *To:* Muley, Praveen (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>;
> Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; Wadhwa,
> Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>; Pengshuping
> (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>; Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia -
> SG/Singapore) <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>; STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* bcause <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> I think no one is refusing PFCP for CUPS.
>
>
>
> I mean, yes PFCP is a good choice for FMC because FMC implies Mobile Core
> conquering Broadband and PFCP is a Mobile Core native solution. This is a
> reasonable choice.
>
>
>
> However I am yet to see FMC coming in terms of mass deployment in next 3-5
> years. I think It is also reasonable to have a fix-line specific CUPS
> solution as a transitional technology.  It gives you more choices and
> flexibility of evolving your BNG network.
>
>
>
> Without clear requirement and road map for FMC (Here I mean implementation
> driven, not technology driven), there would be no good reason to consider
> PFCP in first place. However, PFCP extension for Fix line, or for a longer
> term FMC, could be and should be discussed here simultaneously in IETF.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* bcause <[e-mail]> on behalf of Muley, Praveen
> (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 29 March 2019 16:03
> *To:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia -
> US/Mountain View); Pengshuping (Peng Shuping); Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia -
> SG/Singapore); Greg Mirsky; STARK, BARBARA H
> *Cc:* bcause
> *Subject:* Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> While choosing protocol, we MUST take protocol which has been wide
>  deployed  and worked by larger audience. There is a general good overall
> community gets due to contribution by larger number of people. A good
> example is one reason  3GPP choosing HTTP2 for SBA architecture  and
> dumping  all Telco  protocols like GTP-C/Diameter/Radius.
>
>             In  IETF,  we have leveraged BGP to solve MPLS VPNs, EVPNs,
> VPLS  etc  rather than reinventing some other protocols and BGP also
> becoming defacto for inter-domain exchanges.
>
>
>
> Here in CUPS,  PFCP will be widely deployed as it will be used  for 5G. I
> am using “5g “ rather than mobile operators since its applicability is
> beyond carriers . May be even enterprises  verticals etc for their use
> cases.  So even though CUSP may have some users, its limited applicability
> in solving specific use case and work by small set of folks makes it less
> obvious choice for CUPS  and the balance favors  asymmetrically  for  PFCP
> making it defacto for  CUPS.
>
>
>
> -Praveen
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bcause <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Henderickx, Wim
> (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2019 12:05 AM
> *To:* Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[e-mail]>;
> Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>; Dolganow, Andrew
> (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>; STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* bcause <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> Btw if people are interested we can show a demo how PFCP can be extended
> to support fixed use cases.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 29 March 2019 at 08:02
> *To: *Sanjay WADHWA <[e-mail]>, "Pengshuping (Peng
> Shuping)" <[e-mail]>, Andrew Dolganow <
> [e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>, "STARK,
> BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *bcause <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> I agree with Sanjay here and other who expressed the same. We should not
> fragment the market since CM use case is indeed a subset of the complete
> requirements we need to develop. So let’s not fragment the market and
> ensure we do the industry a favor.
>
> PFCP will be a given, whether people like it or not, 3GPP will not give
> this up for anything that interfaces with mobile. It is proven in the field
> and as said before we have a proposal and implementation which proofs it is
> easy to extend PFCP, but we believe it is better to do this effort in BBF
> where the expertise of the BNG resides.
>
>
>
> *From: *bcause <[e-mail]> on behalf of Sanjay WADHWA <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 29 March 2019 at 07:43
> *To: *"Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[e-mail]>, Andrew
> Dolganow <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>,
> "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *bcause <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> PFCP is a de-facto standard for CUPS in 3GPP. Try taking CUSP or any
> alternative with extensions for 3GPP interfaces to 3GPP. From FMC
> perspective CUSP is a dead-end (may be it is “highly complete” in that
> sense).
>
>
>
> In my view CM’s technical requirements are not mutually exclusive with
> what other operators on the list have asked for, but is a subset. So why
> should we be compelled to fragment the solution space? Is it just to
> accommodate a proprietary implementation? We should look for a single
> solution.
>
> PFCP with extensions is a good starting point that can satisfy the
> requirements expressed by many large operators on the list including CM.
> This is the way forward.
>
>
>
> -Sanjay
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bcause <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Pengshuping (Peng
> Shuping)
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:30 PM
> *To:* Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <[e-mail]>;
> Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham) <[e-mail]>; Greg Mirsky <
> [e-mail]>; STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>; bcause <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>; Gregory Dalle <
> gdalle=[e-mail]>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
> BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> Just an observation.
>
> It seems that most people have made the assumption that the CUSP for the
> case of CMCC will for sure not be suitable for the FMC scenario, and CMCC
> as an operator will neither want FMC nor the potentially extensible CUSP to
> support FMC.
>
> This may not be true since CMCC is an MOBILE operator but using the BNGs
> to provide the fixed network services for now supporting their 150m
> subscribers. That would be the first step to evolve to FMC but a solid step
> as Barbara already summarized in her email (“CUSP is highly complete (for
> the China Mobile deployment) and there is significant experience (2 years)
> with it in a live, deployed environment.”).
>
> Therefore, compared to evaluate the possibility of using PFCP (with the
> amount of unknown extensions) to support this case and FMC cases consuming
> both the resources of BBF and IETF and maybe other SDOs over an unknown
> period, the CUSP as the first step has already been concrete and solid with
> running code.
>
> Also as Barbara summarized in her email that “There are other operators
> with the same basic use case (but who may have specific needs that are
> different due to different networks and governments)”. Can we say that this
> case also has rough consensus?
>
> The question to the community now would be: do we want to start with a
> concrete case with rough consensus and solid deployment with running code,
> or do we want to live in the cloud for (quite) a while to figure out a case
> that is not clear yet (neither for as least the past 20 years) and also to
> spend unknown amount of energy to explore the feasibility of a proposed
> solution for realizing this uncertain case?
>
> Surely the community will make a wise decision. Just a reminder that every
> email we are sending consumers the energy on this planet as well.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Best regards,
> Shuping
>
>
>
> *发件人： *Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)<[e-mail]>
>
> *收件人： *Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham)<[e-mail]>;Greg
> Mirsky<[e-mail]>;STARK, BARBARA H<[e-mail]>;bcause<
> [e-mail]>
>
> *抄送： *Donald Eastlake<[e-mail]>;Gregory Dalle<
> gdalle=[e-mail]>;Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<
> [e-mail]>;Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)<fuyou.miao@huawei..com
> <[e-mail]>>
>
> *主题： *Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
> *时间： *2019-03-29 03:35:18
>
>
>
> IETF works based on “running code and community consensus”. This basic
> IETF rule exists to make progress, compromise, not have single
> vendor/operator dictate to the industry one-off/proprietary implementations
> (we have informational drafts for sharing proprietary solutions), and to
> get many eye balls and brains with a different perspective on a problem to
> produce a quality standard.
>
>
>
> For running code and community consensus we need a solution that meets
> industry requirements (many operators across many regions) and allows
> vendors to optimize development to achieve quality implementation and based
> cost points that benefit everyone. That is a win-win.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2019-03-29, 7:38 AM, "bcause on behalf of Wan, Kenneth (Nokia -
> CA/Markham)" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The other question I think we should ask.
>
>
>
> Should time be spent on a new protocol that solves only ONE use case?
>
> OR
>
> Should time be spent on extending an existing protocol that solves
> multiple use cases (including the one above)?  For multiple service
> providers?  And offer service providers an opportunity for FMC?
>
>
>
> What standardization would benefit the industry the most?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -kw
>
>
>
> *From:* bcause <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:45 PM
> *To:* STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Gregory Dalle <
> gdalle=[e-mail]>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
> BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
>
>
>
> Hi Barbara,
>
> many thanks! I agree with your summary. Hope we collectively arrive at the
> agreement that will be win-win for everyone interested.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:41 PM STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Well, since we’re talking Barbara’s view...
>
>
>
> My view is that there needs to be a decision in IETF to work on CUSP or
> not. One way or the other. From the comments on the list, it appears
> everyone else is interpreting “wait for BBF” the same way I am: it’s an
> implicit decision not to work on CUSP (because the probability of IETF
> working on CUSP decreases as more time passes).
>
>
>
> Just to be clear: I have not expressed on this list whether I’m in favor
> of IETF working on CUSP (or against). But I think it’s clear that **I**
> have no personal interest in being involved in such work. It’s also true
> that I have been forming an opinion.
>
>
>
> To form my opinion, I’ve been collecting the pros and cons (aka criteria
> for evaluation) I’ve read on this list. I’m sharing these on the list with
> the very selfish hope that maybe by acknowledging these, people won’t feel
> the need to express the same pros and cons over (and over and over) again.
>
>
>
> For IETF working CUSP :
>
> China Mobile very much wants CUSP. It satisfies their use case. They have
> 150+ million customers and a whole lot of BNGs using CUSP. Extensive
> experience with CUSP. [And I agree that the presentation from China Mobile
> was excellent and very informative.]
>
> There are other operators with the same basic use case (but who may have
> specific needs that are different due to different networks and governments)
>
> CUSP is highly complete (for the China Mobile deployment) and there is
> significant experience (2 years) with it in a live, deployed environment.
>
>
>
> Against IETF working CUSP:
>
> CUSP is not extensible for other (converged, multi/hybrid-access) use
> cases.
>
> If CUSP is being worked in IETF, it may divert some resources from BBF
> effort to IETF. Not sure how much.
>
> Other vendors (other than the 2 who created CUSP) may feel the need to
> also implement CUSP, which would divert resources from their implementing a
> “one protocol to solve all use cases” protocol. Put another way, there
> becomes a need for “fixed network, disaggregated BNG” vendors to implement
> and support 2 protocols instead of just one – which increases complexity of
> BNG implementations.
>
>
>
> I’m sure I missed some. I’m in a hurry to go drink beer. Feel free to
> unicast me with the ones I missed (if you find this summary useful), and
> I’ll send an updated list of pros and cons tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> *From:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
>
> Look at the people who expressed why they wanted PFCP. Barbara’s view is
> one element but not the only one.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <[e-mail]>
>
>
> Please read Barbara’s message dated 3/27! There are insightful
> observations to your “many more”..
>
>
>
> *发**件人**:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) [
> mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *发**送**时间**:* 2019年3月29日 0:06
> *收件人**:* Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <[e-mail]>; Gregory Dalle <
> gdalle=[e-mail]>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
> *抄送**:* [e-mail]
> *主**题**:* Re: [bcause] 答复: to wait or not to wait
>
>
>
> There are many more who did and voiced their opinion.
>
>
>
> *From: *bcause <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Miaofuyou (Miao
> Fuyou)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 28 March 2019 at 17:03
> *To: *Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]
> <gdalle=40juniper.net@dmarc...ietf.org>>, Donald Eastlake <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[bcause] 答复: to wait or not to wait
>
>
>
>
>
> Which operator has analyzed details of BNG CU against PFCP protocols?
> AFAIK, it’s only CMCC.  Informed decision counts, not number!
>
>
>
> -          Miao
>
>
>
> *发**件人**:* bcause [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>] *代表* Gregory Dalle
> *发**送**时间**:* 2019年3月28日 22:47
> *收件人**:* Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
> *抄送**:* [e-mail]
> *主**题**:* Re: [bcause] to wait or not to wait
>
>
>
> Hi Donald,
>
>
>
> There is no paradox here. CUSP is existing to 1 operator (China Mobile)
> and 2 vendors (Huawei/ZTE). We have yet to hear anybody else who says CUSP
> covers their requirements.
>
> So yes, you are asking to rubber stamp a new protocol, that is known only
> to satisfy one operator.
>
> If you want to compare protocol to protocol, PFCP has reached standard
> status 2 years ago, having been implemented by a number of vendors and in
> production in a number of operators network. That makes it worth confirming
> we can use it for BNG based on additional IEs.
>
>
>
> I hear the argument, that it is one operator but a very large one, as Greg
> emphasized it. But it makes no sense to say that this is representative of
> the market because of size. When it is about capturing requirements, I
> trust 30 operators with 5M subscribers each, more than 1 operator with 150M
> subscribers. Wim sent a couple of shortcomings with CUSP yesterday, that in
> my opinion would not have been missed if more diversity of operators had
> been involved (lawful intercept is a good example; there was significant
> work done at 3GPP, where operators were concerned on how to reconcile
> control plane and user plane information for the lawful authorities).
>
>
>
> At this stage, I am not sure we are learning much from the mailing list. I
> can only hope that we eventually come together and channel all the passion
> and energy into what is at the end of the BoF meeting notes:
>
> “Tendency to prefer BBF complete this work on requirements.”
>
> Greg
>
> PS: just to avoid any misunderstanding, I like China Mobile! I thought the content prepared for the BoF was excellent and that’s great that China Mobile is taking the initiative to solve their problems by evolving the architecture. So nothing personal, just my opinion on what I think is the best way forward.
>
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> You know it is interesting: When convenient to their argument, some say
> that starting with S-CUSP means inventing a new protocol starting from
> scratch. Others, when convenient to their argument, say that starting with
> S-CUSP means rubber stamping a complete existing protocol. It really can't
> be that both of these are true.
>
>
>
> It is understood that when a protocol is turned over to the IETF, the IETF
> has change control.
>
>
>
> As far as I know, PFCP is under 3GPP change control. And, while there are
> limited vendor extension mechanisms in PFCP, I'm not aware of any proposal
> to put PFCP under BBF (or IETF) change control.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Donald
>
> =============================
>
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>
>  1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
>
>  [e-mail]
>
>
>
> --
> bcause mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bcause&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=b7uOOH94vS8SLizH9edYuSighMIVDbp5v3QRWGeBygQ&s=wO6Qromk0vPZLFVWDYCkudGetM3GoDv_KbhJ9wv3Ddk&e=
>
> --
> bcause mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bcause
>
>