IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Fri, 09 February 2018 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 4A10A124B17; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:47:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 uDzGZLq0QlKJ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D73124207; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EB02B5D3351DE; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 01:47:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 01:47:53 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBB.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.91]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:47:46 -0800
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>
CC: "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdOevcCGjGhLLFwWT62+igTQ69qI1wApMiYAAAXlQ5AAYQslAAASKrcQ
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 01:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413540550@SJCEML521-MBB.china.huawei.com>
References: <15c36020cfea41d0a93331ab4a3c0fdf@scwexch12apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com> <B924DE6A-008D-40B4-9FA9-695DF1AEB02E@gmail.com> <d8d6d12f582545ce913284556d259d3b@scwexch12apd.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com> <C9EAC1D6-C37B-45A8-AD84-D0BC0DDFAD4E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9EAC1D6-C37B-45A8-AD84-D0BC0DDFAD4E@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.169]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ila/sRsfzp3hkqOtz31H2Nka52W10qY>
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: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 01:47:57 -0000

Hi Satoru,

Few questions in-line
--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: ila [mailto:ila-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:00 AM
To: Bogineni, Kalyani <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>
Cc: ila@ietf.org; dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ila] [E] Re: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt

[Snip..]

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

[Uma]: I presume this is on N6 interface once de-capsulation is done at eventual UPF.  So can I say this is one more alternative to NSH ??
                Do you see any relevance of this in any other interface?


...

> 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.

[Uma]: Didn't quite understand. Are you referring southbound interface like PCEP here?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email