Re: [Spud] [E] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management

"Mishra, Sanjay" <> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8200912D5A1 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uR-nbUDW3Tvd for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6FA412D0B4 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1469115091; x=1500651091; h=from:to:date:subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lavKz6aDzViRP+OVjURD/GGyYzXmp+qeEPMZomiwlW8=; b=fvb4vc3/3Je241ghFmsvyVP+635CYzSIaRAaGkM0i78ZOGBfuN7tBeHG TZtNnqWEEQPQpNISAr5lauH1dyu5X8/HS4vChOl1BPcPgdl8QoBYrlh38 Os1VASUG/5gHtYBcJaamdJM6e8UfIIHc/FleuVkMNeQkwWZK2janzVkyQ c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 15:31:31 +0000
From: "Mishra, Sanjay" <>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="738483977"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 15:31:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:31:28 -0400
To: Frode Kileng <>, "" <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:31:28 -0400
Thread-Topic: [E] [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
Thread-Index: AdHjTVmY6fesqvXaQ5evzJ8klp8lDwAFlXpQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Spud] [E] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:31:41 -0000

+1 Frode. Well said. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Spud [] On Behalf Of Frode Kileng
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:40 PM
Subject: [E] [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management


the claims that encryption has taken away something that was used for mobile network traffic management and that PLUS is needed to to save mobile network operations keeps surfacing, including at the BoF today. 
This view should not be interpreted as representing the view of all mobile operators

The rule is that all "Internet traffic" is assigned the default bearer and there's no differentiated handling of the traffic within this bearer. It has been hinted that there's exceptions "somewhere" but as long this claim is never substantiated, and there's no problem related to this in today in mobile networks, we should conclude that PLUS is not solving an existing problem related to mobile network management.

Feel free to disagree but then please provide details.

That said, PLUS may be an enabler for mobile network management practices, for example a 1-bit latency/throughput prioritization indicator.

Best regards
Frode Kileng

Spud mailing list