Re: [tsvwg] 5G, DiffServ and new PHBs

[[e-mail]]

Hi Uma,

Thanks for the link, I read a little into your draft. It is closer to what I’d expect by having a policy point between 3GPP and IP network, which I think you refer to in section “2.2.  Front Haul Transport Network”. For the time being to me, the best way to signal the demand for a specific policy to an IP network is combining VPN/addressing/IP-Network-Operator-DiffServ and leave the rest to the preferred engineering of the operator. This still requires a fair amount of standards on policy options and their support, and also some common understanding between remote policy decision points. But it allows for separated deployment of functionality subsets in 3GPP and backbone/fixed network domains. To me, the latter should be as simple as possible, as both technologies so far evolve separately, one seemingly connection oriented (3GPP) and the other connectionless (IP network services).

Regards, Ruediger

I recommend to verify that. If that holds, I’d appreciate appropriate text in IETF work relating DiffServ and 3GPP QCIs. To me one point to be discussed then is, whether IETF should set aside reserves or build mechanisms to support technologies of other SDOs, also if the latter are not deployed at significant scale.
[Uma]: I would still the same  as I said earlier i.e., make broader categories and make it generic. This would enable deployments beyond 3GPP domain. My interest on this would be is slightly different as we faced lot of difficulty as the bits on the packet doesn't contain this information to map it to underlying TE transport  as described here  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-06