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

["Galway, Keith (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

As someone generally only peripherally involved in either IETF or BBF the only thing I saw in this list approaching concensus was a few days ago where is seemed to me there was agreement that BBF had the expertise and mandate to do the control-user plane separation work across the use cases of interest as represented by providers on this list -- and that there was a desire to speed that work.   It defies logic in my opinion how pursuing contradictory standards for sub use-cases at the same time can speed that work along or serve the interests of the networking community in general and I don’t see anything resembling concensus on doing that.

…keith

From: bcause <[e-mail]> on behalf of Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 29, 2019 at 8:18 AM
To: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>, bcause <[e-mail]>, "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]>, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>, "Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <[e-mail]>, "Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[e-mail]>, "Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham)" <[e-mail]>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)

Hi Shuping,

I see you talk about “rough consensus”. How can 1 operator and 2 vendors make a rough consensus?

I don’t see anything in the mailing list that changes one of the conclusions in the BoF minutes of meeting:


“Tendency to prefer BBF complete this work on requirements.”



Greg

On Mar 29, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
hi, Sanjay

We are still talking about the CU interfaces for BNG, right? Why we need to extend the protocol to support “for 3GPP interfaces to 3GPP”?

BTW just a comment, how could you know it is a dead-end without even working on it? :)

Shuping


发件人： Wadhwa, Sanjay (Nokia - US/Mountain View)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人： Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Greg Mirsky<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;STARK, BARBARA H<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;bcause<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送： Donald Eastlake<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Gregory Dalle<gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=[e-mail]>>;Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)<fuyou.miao@huawei..com<mailto:[e-mail]>>
主题： RE: [bcause] Barbara's view (was Re: to wait or not to wait)
时间： 2019-03-29 07:40:24

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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:30 PM
To: Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att..com>; bcause <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=[e-mail]>>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人： Wan, Kenneth (Nokia - CA/Markham)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Greg Mirsky<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;STARK, BARBARA H<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;bcause<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送： Donald Eastlake<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Gregory Dalle<gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=[e-mail]>>;Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)<fuyou.miao@huawei..com<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:45 PM
To: STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=[e-mail]>>; Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]]
发送时间: 2019年3月29日 0:06
收件人: Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=[e-mail]>>; Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Miaofuyou (Miao Fuyou)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 28 March 2019 at 17:03
To: Gregory Dalle <gdalle=[e-mail]<mailto:gdalle=40juniper.net@dmarc....ietf.org>>, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]] 代表 Gregory Dalle
发送时间: 2019年3月28日 22:47
收件人: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

--
bcause mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bcause<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bcause&d=DwMFbw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=jxxFcaeYKgxAIfyCbZwD0fVKc_ljBIQirRVmJz94dkg&s=BGRApamcF3CKzKRWKz4UQXSUfKV-4vkBuxovNVYlCPM&e=>