Re: [v6ops] GTP questions

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9774912955A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 eawJFA_EaZC1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7CCE129418 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:12:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510578770; x=1511788370; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2pn1PoNgplb9Rc48cLzWrRtTvmepimd1hGkdJlwOUgk=; b=N52zUmlrskh7jRbk45VhavOB42ofrE9xy4IavIW78Dw0Hi0zUrpo6t8n RhvIj90wqQymWvk3Czfg+TVU+A/0Ln9zq2BQWoGbVj4JPoRSAHJy8Eo4t hlc27qmELlrB0L/Z4jgjO1p3guHS1Yryq3TZXFfj/KPQOb95n3RVl8NK4 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DcAAARmQla/4kNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM1ZG4ng36KH48pgVcmiFeIMYVIEIIBChgBCoUYAhqEPj8YAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFHgEBAQECAQEBIUQHCwULAgEIDgonAwICAh8GCxQRAgQKBAUZiSVMAw0IEKtogieBQoVuDYNJAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDNIIHgVWBaAEpC4J2gmuBcFOCfjGCMgWZFIhZPQKQCYR5ghWDZYYnhyGNIohVAhEZAYE4AR84gXJ6FUktAYI2glwcgWd3iGEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,389,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217";a="313796362"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Nov 2017 13:12:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vADDCnBs026223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:12:49 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:12:49 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:12:48 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
CC: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] GTP questions
Thread-Index: AQHTW69jkWWsWc8t/kq0Wf5AaxZO16MRPFkAgAEOfVI=
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:12:48 +0000
Message-ID: <05D2842E-AD51-450F-9124-6E3ABBA6D450@cisco.com>
References: <LO1P123MB01168388285206BB7C26F029EA7A0@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAKD1Yr3vziaHfkR+hQ7QHXaz7QraKH2HLUVXUW63GpnOAj4JoQ@mail.gmail.com> <E72C3FBE-57A4-4058-B9E5-F7392C9E9101@google.com> <LO1P123MB0116805F9A18932E2D0694FEEA780@LO1P123MB0116.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1496304E-54BE-47FA-A7F1-1AA6E163DAB1@employees.org> <CAD6AjGQdMFgv4727wHm41HmEyo2Z-PCabPHPSRSVwOi_rey7OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr03zsuSBqPegs6RNbBqnJizUOLZwH+rNDi1Ocg4k+mARQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170928030630.DD2D08867238@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709280753080.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170928074105.BCB99886E538@rock.dv.isc.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709280955490.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20170928081527.21D9F886EF0C@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAAedzxqRar=X6c6WJNOWtKA3S6Dx8nXcuwYYh8OyK3oncJYnsQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709281052430.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se> <ef940338-4167-dbae-0895-069602f76013@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709291034390.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se> <40ec0857-30b1-8e7e-ec41-545d8f604d01@gmail.com>, <CAD6AjGSfBH3GGLp2H07GrJ4KDwtFnD8aYkY5HDT9BCDJWGkeVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSfBH3GGLp2H07GrJ4KDwtFnD8aYkY5HDT9BCDJWGkeVg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05D2842EAD51450F91246E3ABBA6D450ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Ro7QyCQKNbS6heSvGTNRIPNC5F0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] GTP questions
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:12:53 -0000

Pls see inline,


On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com<mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 4:11 AM Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com<mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Mikael,

Sorry for late reply.

Le 29/09/2017 à 10:44, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>> I would like to ask whether by 3GPP specs the GTP packets can
>> optionally be transported in IPv6 messages?
>>
>> 3GPP spec "GTP" Rel 15 of September 2017 says this:
>>> UDP/IP is the only path protocol defined to transfer GTP
>>> messages in the version 1 of GTP. A User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
>>> compliant with IETF RFC 768 [13] shall be used.
>>
>> In practice, a packet capture on PGW shows an IPv6 DHCPv6-PD
>> Solicit message, preceded by a GTP-U Header, which is itself
>> preceded by a "GTPU Rx PDU" which is an IPv4 UDP packet.
>>
>> The UDPv4 port number that transports GTP packets is 2152,
>> reserved at IANA and at that 3GPP spec.
>
> It's an implementation detail whether this is carried over IPv4 or
> IPv6. UDP can be carried by both. If you read 29.060 it talks about
> GTP over both IPv4 and IPv6:
>
> "If an IPv4/IPv6 capable SGSN received IPv4 GGSN addresses from the
> old SGSN, it shall include IPv4 addresses in the fields SGSN Address
> for Control Plane and SGSN Address for User Traffic and IPv6
> addresses in the fields Alternative SGSN Address for Control Plane
> and Alternative SGSN Address for User Traffic. Otherwise, an
> IPv4/IPv6 capable SGSN shall use only SGSN IPv6 addresses if it has
> GGSN IPv6 addresses available. If the GGSN supports IPv6 below GTP,
> it shall store and use the IPv6 SGSN addresses for communication
> with the SGSN and ignore the IPv4 SGSN addresses. If the GGSN
> supports only IPv4 below GTP, it shall store and use the IPv4  SGSN
> addresses for communication with the  SGSN and ignore the IPv6 SGSN
> addresses. When active contexts are being redistributed due to load
> sharing, G-PDUs that are in transit across the Gn-interface are in
> an undetermined state and may be lost."
>
> "below GTP" seems to indicate what protocol GTP is run over.

YEs, I can agree to read it that way, but it can be a little bit of a
stretch.  GTP Rel15 Sept. 2017 clearly says only RFC768.  If it wanted
to mean GTP/UDP/IPv6 it could have cited e.g. RFC6936.  Hence the doubt.

But yes, I agree with you that in largest part UDP works over IPv6 as
over IPv4.

> There is a lot more text in TS 29.060 regarding this, but interested
> parties can read it and form their own opinion.

I agree.

> To me it's clear that 3GPP has done the work to try to achieve so you
> can standards-based build a network with no IPv4 addresses used for
> infrastructure. If this works in real life in shipping products,
> that's a whole other question.

I agree that real life in shipping products is a whole other question.

I had some discussion with some people, and here are some of my
deductions.  If I am wrong, I carry the responsibility.

Operator1 in hexagon country: the IPv6 is carried in GTP/UDP/IPv4
Operator2 in country voted out of EU: the IPv6 is carred in GTP/UDP/IPv4.

Among other cellular operators that offer IPv6 to smartphones, I wonder
about the following:

Is T-Mobile USA carrying the smartphone's IPv6 inside GTP/UDP/IPv4?  Or
inside GTP/UDP/IPv6?

Is Reliance JIO in India carrying the smartphone's IPv6 inside
GTP/UDP/IPv4?  Or inside GTP/UDP/IPv6?

Latter. Hopefully, more details will get discussed at the next v6 world Congress in Paris.


My gut feeling is that all do GTP/UDP/IPv4.

Your gut is correct, i do not know of any carrier using GTP with ipv6 transport.

That said, i believe the GTP transport network operations is orthogonal to the network that the UE / customer traffic experiences.

+1.



My intention with this discussion is twofold: find an operator that does
GTP/UDP/IPv6 and second to deduce something for the IPv6-only
terminology draft.

How do either help out ?


Alex

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops