IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Fri, 09 February 2018 20:16 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 02CB112708C; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:16:17 -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 AwjKM5NrxrHp; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:16:15 -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 415101242F7; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D7003E7D4DA5D; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:16:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 20:16:12 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBB.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.91]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:16:08 -0800
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
CC: "Bogineni, Kalyani" <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com>, "ila@ietf.org" <ila@ietf.org>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: review comments on ] draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHToYe+mdZ1iWMf/0CWT3FyL3WUiKOceRJA
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 20:16:07 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413540903@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> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685413540550@SJCEML521-MBB.china.huawei.com> <C90B1669-546B-49B5-ABB7-33A9AC073955@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C90B1669-546B-49B5-ABB7-33A9AC073955@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.119]
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/yjE42hwp2GPfFi_GLLrIcSMPCro>
Subject: Re: [Ila] 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 20:16:17 -0000

	>Let me think just an example, if a SMF sees an IPv6 address as an UPF address, is actually an IPv6 segment ID of a TE path through several IPv6 routers and links, a southbound could be PCEP but not limited. 
                >BGP-LS should work to disseminate that segment and FPC may work to disclose it to the SMF and the TE path would be attached mobility sessions by the SMF as if it is an UPF. 

Thx. 
I see what you are saying; this is after N3 termination and full charging, LI and bit rate enforcement is done and to move the packet on the provided TE path to the UPF on N9. 
My original question was more on SFC functionalities that ought to be done on N6 (I know the draft you pointed https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00 and I still see that as alternative to NSH) and any of these have to be done on N9. The only thing I see is TE on N9.
I think, there is no bearing on SMF for Gi LAN stuff on N6.

--
Uma C.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email