Re: [Ideas] [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt

Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <> Sat, 06 May 2017 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE71F1293EB; Sat, 6 May 2017 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hehESNNo6YTm; Sat, 6 May 2017 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F35E1201F8; Sat, 6 May 2017 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DMJ86643; Sat, 06 May 2017 18:24:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sat, 6 May 2017 19:24:55 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 6 May 2017 11:24:39 -0700
From: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
CC: Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <>
Thread-Topic: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 18:24:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EC7A99B9A59C1B4695037EEB5036666B025737C4SJCEML702CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.590E14F9.009D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 5a6919ee8cca22f97997f376fc0a24cc
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 18:25:06 -0000

FYI The work for a common control plane architecture across all identifier-locator protocols is underway in IDEAS.
Here is a pointer to the PS and it references to companion documents in section 10 as well.


I am also copying the IDEAS alias.


From: 5gangip [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt

Dear Marco, and all,

Thanks for all the valuable comments – regarding many addressing ILA we saw that we need to clarify more our scope as mentioned in the PS draft to work on access connectivity and session management in case of multiple technologies – while mobility is only one aspect of (but for many use cases can be kind of neglected). Thus we believe to address an issue not yet dealt with elsewhere in IETF in that detail.
And BTW from ILA we basically want to inherit the concept and principle but need to change a lot … as you already discussed here.
Best Regards

From: 5gangip [] On Behalf Of Marco Liebsch
Sent: Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 10:45
To:; Ca By
Cc:; von Hugo, Dirk; Lorenzo Colitti
Subject: Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt

Good comments and I think we should rather talk about identifier-locator addressing as a principle not about a
particular specification at this point in time. Address re-write can be a suitable principle to steer traffic without the
need to encapsulate. I don’t see a problem applying the principle to both, per-host /64 and IPv6 addresses.

Btw, I see this as enabler to de-couple a serving anchor node from the actual IP address or per-host prefix
that it anchors. Traditionally the mobile device address/prefix is assigned from the anchor’s network (topologically
correct) hence serves as routable identifier up to the anchor node. Address/prefix re-write enables steering
downlink traffic to a new anchor node after anchor relocation (or anchor movement as pointed out below in
this eMail thread) in case IP address continuity is required by the device or its applications.


From: 5gangip [] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Mai 2017 17:40
To: Ca By
Cc:<>; Lorenzo Colitti;<>
Subject: Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt

Hi Cameron,

Thanks for your constructive comments as always.
Please see inline.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Ca By <<>> wrote:

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 AM Lorenzo Colitti <<>> wrote:

this draft mentions using ILA for mobility But ILA cannot be used as is for UE addressing because ILA only supports mobility of individual IPv6 addresses, not prefixes. That contravenes IETF best practices for IPv6 address allocation, which say that networks should either allow hosts to form IPv6 addresses at will, or to assign a /64 prefix to each host. See RFC 7934.

All current 3G and 4G networks follow those best practices, because they assign a /64 prefix to the UE. These are very widely deployed (hundreds of millions of subscribers). We should ensure that 5G networks can do the same.


I fully agree with Lorenzo.  ILA does not have sufficient capabilities to match GTP based mobility we have today.

You mean ILA as in draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-04?
As we describe in the PS, we need many revisions on that hopefully as part of our 5G IP work.
Maybe the new protocol will need to be given a different name, not to inherit all these comments :)

A step backwards is unacceptable.

It is also not clear how ILA would support slicing.  Being able to move the mobility anchor / PPF dynamically will be a key component for many 5G usecases.

You mean UPF? This is what we have in 5G architecture, yes it is virtualized PGW.
Thanks for pointing the slicing issue, that is something we need to look into.



On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:00 PM,  <<>> wrote:
> Dear all,
> As announced yesterday we have uploaded the problem statement draft you find
> below.
> Thanks for reading, discussing, commenting …!
> Best Regards – also on behalf of all the authors
> Behcet & Dirk
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:25 PM, <<>> wrote:
> A new version of I-D, draft-xyx-5gip-ps-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name:           draft-xyx-5gip-ps
> Revision:       00
> Title:          5G IP Access Mobility and Session Management Protocols
> Document date:  2017-05-02
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          14
> URL:
> Status:
> Htmlized:
> Htmlized:
> Abstract:
>    This document builds upon 5G IP issues work and - based on a
>    simplified 5G system architecture - attempts to make the case for a
>    possible set of new protocols that need to be developed to be used
>    among various virtualized functions in a 5G network.
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>.
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
5gangip mailing list<>

5gangip mailing list<>