Re: [DMM] Additional questions/comments on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-13

Hi Dave,

Very good list and I am sure there could be a bit more functionalities GTP
overlay  has been supporting over a period of time *and* still currently
being used in various parts of the cellular networks.

Replacing overlays may be a good goal if we can bring the same technical
benefits different underlays (L2, L2.5, IPv4, IPv6) bring to the table in
various parts of the networks, in this case cellular deployments. We(IETF)
should develop tools towards the objective but I suspect we are there to
replace any overlay (if this is the central goal) with a single underlay
mechanism. Dino presented multiple times on this topic in various
WGs/pre-bofs/BoFs and also asked to "get over with it" (a thin overlay).

One of the things that we all should ask ourselves is - what overlay
functionalities we want to bring to underlay (L3/L2.5) as opposed to
complete replacement of the overlay. IMO, this is a better question than
"replacing".

Appreciate your thoughts and views on this.

Thank you!
--
Uma C.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 10:50 AM David Allan I <david.i.allan=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi:
>
> Looking over this draft it strikes me that IF you are discussing a GTP
> replacement, there are a few unaddressed gaps...or at least I see no
> mention of them.
>
> -  adding X2 to the list of interfaces to be supported
> -  support for end-marker for handoff stream synchronization (probably
> could fit the unused bit in Args.Mob.Session but frankly I have not studied
> this in detail)
> -  support for QMP (quality measurement protocol), which I believe needs
> to also extend across the radio interface so is not simply local to the GTP
> domain and can be "stunt doubled"
> -  support for paging policy presence/indication
>
> If this has come up elsewhere, let me know
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>