IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ila@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB023127599; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SybU-DF6Gp-6; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC2C21204DA; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 8so2894055oix.7; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 01:00:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NPv6k6i0Ogx52jbqTMPp3epZIt9kQNhTO40g2Fq9zwI=; b=rJ/jHmFiQLI7yBj217Q9UBSgioozZ8aCa7abfqxmPHYonvdSICvXABHaiVGU+Ttwd9 kBX7U5hAw7Cv7Tv5B3sByq8e6EGBwphckogRswDimPefKd2dY1Tq+CJWazpEmrJDKOcY RvtW67YqxduNd1m+oQTZQWJwr2AoESCZt8kA3hKPy3Xt9tXhwi07Jz/elJZSKrL9tbWG 0Wq8NDyjOOvyd+N+0lAB8vYnPvv/o7O5X3I+jv7/pmxbCqySu8mV3JciBmZEjyvoQHEH N9IuX6m3WNdw4P26Io2EQSKFwJzMTwRLvqC0+6uu6J7NEx7P+ORJHI1Wj2OJ4PWaKPk+ 1KWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NPv6k6i0Ogx52jbqTMPp3epZIt9kQNhTO40g2Fq9zwI=; b=q1C9WLb8fApiiBSeEVSQcYdtuoh0GImoZOqCdKUGJ1JeSkiAXKmvwK/aOiY+xd21Ow tfAQyHMO3/vmgMTf+oEXFdw4HETmo5w0B3dcmlWMZ6GcPYV1Xdcw3T7fCQIuRQ+N0nbN Z71bZjQtlG5tv8PWiuj+eoswsFrpISrz6fBqw39J/cVYonflIqa9r7gshJUiLYzHkfTf +H81UueyEkXE04lvMHs8OANF5m6vEAAtLlQGfRQ5+xzgJgQUpXZNn/ItmOIZNnJaaMmB 07tVefnwoJf6Q0CxCnIPzZoEgOBAYCqVLCbyXC/UM88420tVEfdWGyBiXwY/isx8hWUi bE0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAG8vOZq38f89AHjcIVTC7mKWTFZzQxsRvkeOXCeVmlHYfCjikN utFet9w6NMfiHHgctMevCbo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226INtasGvscblrBJhvWgMAs9fIXrO/z5xZ0Fs8PlMqZmPso8CQdAIP6rpfZXkdRwf9b5KHZmg==
X-Received: by 10.202.222.139 with SMTP id v133mr6159819oig.298.1518080421802; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 01:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.2.0.1] (softbank060108130056.bbtec.net. [60.108.130.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p111sm1808787ota.76.2018.02.08.01.00.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Feb 2018 01:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8d6d12f582545ce913284556d259d3b@scwexch12apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:00:16 +0900
Cc: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>, "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C9EAC1D6-C37B-45A8-AD84-D0BC0DDFAD4E@gmail.com>
References: <15c36020cfea41d0a93331ab4a3c0fdf@scwexch12apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com> <B924DE6A-008D-40B4-9FA9-695DF1AEB02E@gmail.com> <d8d6d12f582545ce913284556d259d3b@scwexch12apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com>
To: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ila/6wUpN9UZJA3NdaN8-bR2sQ9U-1c>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ila@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Identifier Locator Addressing <ila.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ila/>
List-Post: <mailto:ila@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ila>, <mailto:ila-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:00:25 -0000

Hello Kalyani,

> [..snip..]

> Your slides 9 – 13 show interactions between UPFs and SMF. There are 2 kinds of UPFs:
> Anchor type UPF and service function type UPF. What are the functionalities of these?

Please find some functionalities in the SRv6 mobile Uplane draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00#section-5

When it comes to anchor, it should be equivalent with PSA, PDU Session Anchor, in TS23.501 of 3GPP 5G_ph1 terminology.

You would also find various SRv6 functions in the network programming draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-03

Maybe you can see SRv6 mobile uplane as a set of SRv6 functions like a SRv6 profile for mobile with some augment.

When it comes to service function type UPF, you name it. Following draft exhibits how service chain can be done by SRv6:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00


> What are the changes in SMF functionalities to support SRv6? Is the interface between
> SMF and UPFs based on N4/Sx (PFCP in TS 29.244)?

SMF functionalities seems still work in progress so that I couldn’t say clearly what the change to it.
In CUPS architecture for both Rel-14 and Rel-15, PFCP is expected as Sx and N4 for SRv6 Uplane with no change to over-the-wire messages in basic mode operation:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00#section-8.1


> Also you show IPv6/SRv6 nodes in those slides. Are the UPFs ‘overlaid’ on IPv6/SRv6 nodes?
> Are these UPFs VNFs? Or are UPFs implemented on IPv6/SRv6 nodes?
>  

When you see UPF specifically it should be controlled by SMF through N4, they are not the UPFs.
But you might see them as UPFs if a SMF doesn’t control them directly but the SMF can put the sessions to it through some other means.
3GPP SA2 has studied on that case (ETSUN). We consider how SMF deal with that case and SRv6 may help to solve the issues to it in simpler way.
Please let me know if you are interested in.

Cheers,
--satoru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email