RE: [External] Re: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

[Apostolis Salkintzis <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jana,

Yes, between the UE and UPF there is one multipath tunnel – or several multipath tunnels, each one with different QoS characteristics. Each tunnel should support unreliable transport (e.g. to transfer real-time UDP traffic), so MPTCP is not suitable in this scenario.

BTW, MPTCP between the UE and UPF is already supported in 3GPP Rel-16 specs for TCP traffic.

Regards,
Apostolis

From: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 7:59 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Apostolis Salkintzis <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>; Marten Seemann <[e-mail]>; QUIC WG <[e-mail]>; Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Re: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Thanks for the clarification.

Do I understand correctly that the UE-UPF connection is a multipath tunnel then? If so, and if ordered delivery is desired, was MPTCP considered as a solution?

- jana

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:32 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Full ACK. 3GPP requests MP-QUIC to be applied between UE and UPF. Encapsulating the traffic from services on the UE into this MP-QUIC connection allows communication with the respective remote servers.

Br

Markus

From: Waqar Zia <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2020 09:49
To: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Apostolis Salkintzis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Amend, Markus <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Hi Jana,

The diagram is the correct depiction as I see: the MP-QUIC connection is indeed expected to be between the UE and the UPF, not between the UE and a (3GPP-) external server. Hence the reordering that may happen due to use of two different access technologies between the UE and UPF needs to be fixed at the UPF for the uplink and at the UE for the downlink.

Best regards,
Waqar.

From: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Jana Iyengar
Sent: 03 December 2020 05:55
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Apostolis Salkintzis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Speaking only as a user of computer technology, thanks for making this more palatable as a PDF. A few questions:

- I am a bit confused by the picture, and Spencer or someone else can point me to something that I haven't read yet -- I thought the QUIC connection was between the remote server and the UE, not between the UPF and the UE. Am I missing something?
- Assuming that the QUIC connection is between the UE and the remote server: Since only endpoints can see the packet numbers, how are the packets supposed to be re-sequenced at any point in the middle (the UPF)?

Thanks!
- jana

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Including Apostolis into the loop.

De : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Envoyé : mardi 1 décembre 2020 12:07
À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; MORAND Lionel TGI/OLN <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Thanks for raising this topic. With https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amend-iccrg-multipath-reordering-01 we consider exactly that and try to provide input to develop/discuss different re-ordering strategies. My personal belief is, that without any re-ordering implementation in the UPF or UE the end-to-end delivery will be worse.

From: QUIC <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Kazuho Oku
Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2020 11:29
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Liaison Statement Management Tool <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Marten Seemann <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; QUIC Discussion List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin Duke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Lionel, thank you for converting the statement to PDF.

Reading the document, I have one question.

"The simultaneous transmission of a data flow across two accesses should not result in out-of-order delivery"

I wonder what this sentence means. Is it suggesting that UPF (and possibly UE) would buffer packets that arrive on the faster path until the packets that were sent on the slower path reach that node? To give an example, let's say that UE has sent three packets: packet 1 sent using WiFi, packet 2 using LTE, packet 3 using WiFi. UPF receives packets in the order of 1, 3, 2. Is UPF expected to postpone the forwarding of packet 3 until it receives packet 2?

I raise the question, because during the interim, some have pointed out that such buffering has negative effects on loss recovery, and that we should devote our efforts to designing an end-to-end multi-path design, rather than having an intermediary that aggregates paths (in this case UPF).


2020年12月1日(火) 18:43 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
Hi,

Here is a pdf version.

Regards,

Lionel

De : Marten Seemann [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Envoyé : mardi 1 décembre 2020 05:17
À : Liaison Statement Management Tool <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lars Eggert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; MORAND Lionel TGI/OLN <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; QUIC Discussion List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin Duke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Objet : Re: New Liaison Statement, "LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions"

Would it be possible to publish this document in a format that can be opened by everyone without using proprietary software?

Thank you,
Marten

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:40 PM Liaison Statement Management Tool <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Title: LS on ATSSS Phase 2 conclusions
Submission Date: 2020-11-30
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1710/

From: Susanna Kooistra <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: QUIC Discussion List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Martin Duke <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Lars Eggert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Response Contacts: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Technical Contacts:
Purpose: For information

Body:
Attachments:

    S2-2009400_8852r02
    https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2020-11-30-3gpp-tsgsa-sa2-quic-ls-on-atsss-phase-2-conclusions-attachment-1.doc


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.


--
Kazuho Oku

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.