| < draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-03.txt | draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-04.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMM Working Group U. Chunduri, Ed. | DMM Working Group U. Chunduri, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft R. Li | Internet-Draft R. Li | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Huawei USA | Intended status: Informational Futurewei | |||
| Expires: August 18, 2019 S. Bhaskaran | Expires: January 9, 2020 S. Bhaskaran | |||
| Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd | Altiostar | |||
| J. Tantsura | J. Tantsura | |||
| Apstra, Inc. | Apstra, Inc. | |||
| L. Contreras | L. Contreras | |||
| Telefonica | Telefonica | |||
| P. Muley | P. Muley | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| February 14, 2019 | J. Kaippallimalil | |||
| Futurewei | ||||
| July 8, 2019 | ||||
| Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G | Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G | |||
| draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-03 | draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-04 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document specifies a framework and a mapping function for 5G | This document specifies a framework and a mapping function for 5G | |||
| mobile user plane with transport network slicing, integrated with | mobile user plane with transport network slicing, integrated with | |||
| Mobile Radio Access and a Virtualized Core Network. The integrated | Mobile Radio Access and a Virtualized Core Network. The integrated | |||
| approach is specified in a way to fit into the 5G core network | approach is specified in a way to fit into the 5G core network | |||
| architecture defined in [TS23.501]. | architecture defined in [TS23.501]. | |||
| It focuses on an optimized mobile user plane functionality with | It focuses on an optimized mobile user plane functionality with | |||
| various transport services needed for some of the 5G traffic needing | various transport services needed for some of the 5G traffic needing | |||
| low and deterministic latency, real-time, mission-critical services. | low and deterministic latency, real-time, mission-critical services. | |||
| This document describes, how this objective is achieved agnostic to | This document describes, how this objective is achieved agnostic to | |||
| the transport underlay used (IPv4, IPv6, MPLS) in various deployments | the transport underlay used (IPv6, MPLS, IPv4) in various deployments | |||
| and with a new transport network underlay routing, called Preferred | and with a new transport network underlay routing, called Preferred | |||
| Path Routing (PPR). | Path Routing (PPR). | |||
| Requirements Language | Requirements Language | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. | |||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 1.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 1.2. Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.2. Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2. Transport Network (TN) and Slice aware Mobility on N3/N9 . . 5 | 1.3. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2.1. Discrete Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2. Transport Network and Slice aware Mobility on N3/N9 . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.2. Integrated Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.1. Integrated Approach with TNF in SBI . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 2.3. Transport Network Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.1.1. Transport Network Function and Interfaces . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3. Using PPR as TN Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2.1.2. Functionality for E2E Management . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.1. PPR with Transport Awareness for 5GS on N3/N9 Interfaces 11 | 2.2. TNF as part of existing 5G Control Function . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 3.2. Path Steering Support to native IP user planes . . . . . 13 | 2.2.1. Mobile Transport Network Context and Scalability . . 11 | |||
| 3.3. Service Level Guarantee in Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 2.2.2. MTNC Identifier in the Data Packet . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 3.4. PPR with various 5G Mobility procedures . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3. Using PPR as TN Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 3.4.1. SSC Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.1. PPR with Transport Awareness for 5GS on N3/N9 Interfaces 13 | |||
| 3.4.2. SSC Mode2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 3.2. Path Steering Support to native IP user planes . . . . . 15 | |||
| 3.4.3. SSC Mode3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 3.3. Service Level Guarantee in Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 4. Other TE Technologies Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4. Other TE Technologies Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| Appendix A. Appendix: New Control Plane and User Planes . . . . 20 | Appendix A. New Control Plane and User Planes . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| A.1. LISP and PPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | A.1. Slice aware Mobility: Discrete Approach . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| A.2. ILA and PPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | Appendix B. PPR with various 5G Mobility procedures . . . . . . 20 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | B.1. SSC Mode1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| B.2. SSC Mode2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | ||||
| B.3. SSC Mode3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | ||||
| 1. Introduction and Problem Statement | 1. Introduction | |||
| 3GPP Release 15 for 5GC is defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP], | 3GPP Release 15 for 5GC is defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP], | |||
| [TS.23.502-3GPP] and [TS.23.503-3GPP]. User Plane Functions (UPF) | [TS.23.502-3GPP] and [TS.23.503-3GPP]. User Plane Functions (UPF) | |||
| are the data forwarding entities in the 5GC architecture. The | are the data forwarding entities in the 5GC architecture. The | |||
| architecture allows the placement of Branching Point (BP) and Uplink | architecture allows the placement of Branching Point (BP) and Uplink | |||
| Classifier (ULCL) UPFs closer to the access network (5G-AN). The 5G- | Classifier (ULCL) UPFs closer to the access network (5G-AN). The 5G- | |||
| AN can be a radio access network or any non-3GPP access network, for | AN can be a radio access network or any non-3GPP access network, for | |||
| example, WLAN. The IP address is anchored by a PDU session anchor | example, WLAN. The IP address is anchored by a PDU session anchor | |||
| UPF (PSA UPF). The interface between the BP/ULCL UPF and the PSA UPF | UPF (PSA UPF). | |||
| is called N9. While in REL15, 3GPP has adopted GTP-U for the N9 | ||||
| interface, new user plane protocols along with GTP-U are being | ||||
| investigated for N9 interface in REL16, as part of [CT4SID]. | ||||
| Concerning to this document another relevant interface is N3, which | ||||
| is between the 5G-AN and the UPF. N3 interface is similar to the | ||||
| user plane interface S1U in LTE [TS.23.401-3GPP]. This document: | ||||
| o does not propose any change to existing N3 user plane | N3, N9 Interfaces: The interface between the BP/ULCL UPF and the PSA | |||
| encapsulations to realize the benefits with the approach specified | UPF is called N9 [TS.23.501-3GPP]. While in REL15, 3GPP has adopted | |||
| here | GTP-U for the N9 interface, new user plane protocols along with GTP-U | |||
| are being investigated for N9 interface in REL16, as part of | ||||
| [CT4SID]. Concerning to this document another relevant interface is | ||||
| N3, which is between the 5G-AN and the UPF. N3 interface is similar | ||||
| to the user plane interface S1U in LTE [TS.23.401-3GPP]. This | ||||
| document: | ||||
| o Do not need architectural change to[TS.23.501-3GPP] to provide | ||||
| 3GPP slice, QoS support in transport plane | ||||
| o and can work with any encapsulation (including GTP-U) for the N9 | o and can work with any encapsulation (including GTP-U) for the N9 | |||
| interface. | interface. | |||
| [TS.23.501-3GPP] defines network slicing as one of the core | 1.1. Problem Statement | |||
| capability of 5GC with slice awareness from Radio and 5G Core (5GC) | ||||
| network. It also defines various Session and Service Continuity | ||||
| (SSC) modes and mobility scenarios for 5G. The 5G System (5GS) as | ||||
| defined, allows transport network between N3 and N9 interfaces work | ||||
| independently with various IETF Traffic Engineering (TE) | ||||
| technologies. | ||||
| However, lack of underlying Transport Network (TN) awareness may lead | [TS.23.501-3GPP] and [TS.23.502-3GPP] define network slicing as one | |||
| to selection of sub-optimal UPF(s) and/or 5G-AN during 5GS | of the core capability of 5GC with slice awareness from Radio and 5G | |||
| procedures. This could lead to inability to meet SLAs for real-time, | Core (5GC) network. The 5G System (5GS) as defined, do not consider | |||
| mission-critical or latency sensitive services. These 5GS procedures | the resources and functionalities needed from transport network for | |||
| the selection of UPF. This is seen as independent functionality and | ||||
| currently not part of 5GS. | ||||
| However, the lack of underlying Transport Network (TN) awareness may | ||||
| lead to selection of sub-optimal UPF(s) and/or 5G-AN during 5GS | ||||
| procedures. This could also lead to inability to meet SLAs for real- | ||||
| time, mission-critical or latency sensitive services. 5GS procedures | ||||
| including but not limited to Service Request, PDU Session | including but not limited to Service Request, PDU Session | |||
| Establishment, or User Equipment (UE) mobility need same service | Establishment, or User Equipment (UE) mobility need same service | |||
| level characteristics from the TN for the Protocols Data Unit (PDU) | level characteristics from the TN for the Protocols Data Unit (PDU) | |||
| session, similar to as provided in Radio and 5GC for the various | session, similar to as provided in Radio and 5GC for the various | |||
| Slice Service Types (SST) and 5QI's defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP] . | Slice Service Types (SST) and 5QI's defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. | |||
| 1.1. Acronyms | 1.2. Solution Approach | |||
| This document specifies 2 approaches to fulfil the needs of 5GS to | ||||
| transport user plane traffic from 5G-AN to UPF for all service | ||||
| continuity modes [TS.23.501-3GPP] in an optimized fashion. This is | ||||
| done by, keeping mobility procedures aware of underlying transport | ||||
| network along with slicing requirements. | ||||
| Section 2 describes in detail on how TN aware mobility can be built | ||||
| irrespective of underlying TN technology used. Using Preferred Path | ||||
| Routing (PPR), applicable to any transport network underlay (IPv6, | ||||
| MPLS and IPv4) is detailed in Section 3. How other IETF TE | ||||
| technologies applicable for this draft is specified in Section 4. At | ||||
| the end, Appendix B further describes the applicability and | ||||
| procedures of PPR with 5G SSC modes on N3 and N9 interfaces. | ||||
| 1.3. Acronyms | ||||
| 5QI - 5G QoS Indicator | 5QI - 5G QoS Indicator | |||
| 5G-AN - 5G Access Network | 5G-AN - 5G Access Network | |||
| AMF - Access and Mobility Management Function (5G) | AMF - Access and Mobility Management Function (5G) | |||
| BP - Branch Point (5G) | BP - Branch Point (5G) | |||
| CSR - Cell Site Router | CSR - Cell Site Router | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 25 ¶ | |||
| RQI - Reflective QoS Indicator (5G) | RQI - Reflective QoS Indicator (5G) | |||
| SBI - Service Based Interface (5G) | SBI - Service Based Interface (5G) | |||
| SID - Segment Identifier | SID - Segment Identifier | |||
| SMF - Session Management Function (5G) | SMF - Session Management Function (5G) | |||
| SSC - Session and Service Continuity (5G) | SSC - Session and Service Continuity (5G) | |||
| SST - Slice and Service Types (5G) | SST - Slice and Service Types (5G) | |||
| SR - Segment Routing | SR - Segment Routing | |||
| TE - Traffic Engineering | TE - Traffic Engineering | |||
| ULCL - Uplink Classifier (5G) | ULCL - Uplink Classifier (5G) | |||
| UPF - User Plane Function (5G) | UPF - User Plane Function (5G) | |||
| URLLC - Ultra reliable and low latency communications (5G) | URLLC - Ultra reliable and low latency communications (5G) | |||
| 1.2. Solution Approach | 2. Transport Network and Slice aware Mobility on N3/N9 | |||
| This document specifies a mechanism to fulfil the needs of 5GS to | Currently specified Control Plane (CP) functions - the Access and | |||
| transport user plane traffic from 5G-AN to UPF for all service | Mobility Management Function (AMF), the Session Management Function | |||
| continuity modes [TS.23.501-3GPP] in an optimized fashion. This is | (SMF) and the User plane (UP) components gNB, User Plane Function | |||
| done by, keeping mobility procedures aware of underlying transport | (UPF) with N2, N3, N4, N6 and N9 interfaces are relevant to this | |||
| network along with slicing requirements. | document. Other Virtualized 5G control plane components NRF, AUSF, | |||
| PCF, AUSF, UDM, NEF, and AF are not directly relevant for the | ||||
| discussion in this document and one can see the functionalities of | ||||
| these in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. | ||||
| Section 2 describes two methods, with which Transport Network (TN) | From encapsulation perspective, N3 interface is similar to S1U in 4G/ | |||
| aware mobility can be built irrespective of underlying TN technology | LTE [TS.23.401-3GPP] network and uses GTP-U [TS.29.281-3GPP] to | |||
| used. Using Preferred Path Routing (PPR) as TN Underlay is detailed | transport any UE PDUs (IPv4, IPv6, IPv4v6, Ethernet or Unstructured). | |||
| in Section 3. Section 3.4 further describes the applicability and | ||||
| procedures of the same with 5G SSC modes on N3 and N9 interfaces. | Unlike S1U, N3 has some additional aspects as there is no bearer | |||
| concept and no per bearer GTP-U tunnels. Instead, QoS information is | ||||
| carried in the PDU Session Container GTP-U extension header. | ||||
| TN Aware Mobility with optimized transport network functionality is | ||||
| explained below with approaches specified in Section 2.1 and | ||||
| Section 2.2 . How PPR fits in this framework in detail along with | ||||
| other various TE technologies briefly are in Section 3 and Section 4 | ||||
| respectively. | ||||
| 2.1. Integrated Approach with TNF in SBI | ||||
| 2. Transport Network (TN) and Slice aware Mobility on N3/N9 | ||||
| Service Based Interfaces (SBI) | Service Based Interfaces (SBI) | |||
| ----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+----+--------+-----+----+------ | ----+-----+-----+----+----+-----+----+--------+-----+----+------ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +---+---+ | +--+--+ | +--+---+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | +-+--+ | +---+---+ | +--+--+ | +--+---+ | +--+--+ +--+--+ | +-+--+ | |||
| | NSSF | | | NRF | | | AUSF | | | UDM | | NEF | | | AF | | | NSSF | | | NRF | | | AUSF | | | UDM | | NEF | | | AF | | |||
| +-------+ | +-----+ | +------+ | +-----+ +-----+ | +----+ | +-------+ | +-----+ | +------+ | +-----+ +-----+ | +----+ | |||
| +---+----+ +--+--+ +---=++ +--------------+-+ | +---+----+ +--+--+ +----++ +--------------+-+ | |||
| | AMF | | PCF | | TNF | | SMF | | | AMF | | PCF | | TNF | | SMF | | |||
| +---+--+-+ +-----+ +-+-+-+ +-+-----------+--+ | +---+--+-+ +-----+ +-+-+-+ +-+-----------+--+ | |||
| N1 | | | | To | | N1 | | | | To | | |||
| to-UE+----+ N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 +--Nn-+ N4 | to-UE+----+ N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 +--Nn-+ N4 | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +---+---+ +--++ +-+--+---+ +-+-----+ +----+ | +---+---+ +--++ +-+--+---+ +-+-----+ +----+ | |||
| |gNB+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N9--+ UPF +--N6--+ DN | | |gNB+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N9--+ UPF +--N6--+ DN | | |||
| +---+ +---+ +-+------+ +-------+ +----+ | +---+ +---+ +-+------+ +-------+ +----+ | |||
| | +----+ | | +----+ | |||
| +-| DN | | +-| DN | | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 47 ¶ | |||
| The above diagrams depicts one of the scenarios of the 5G network | The above diagrams depicts one of the scenarios of the 5G network | |||
| specified in [TS.23.501-3GPP] and with a new and virtualized control | specified in [TS.23.501-3GPP] and with a new and virtualized control | |||
| component Transport Network Function (TNF). A Cell Site Router (CSR) | component Transport Network Function (TNF). A Cell Site Router (CSR) | |||
| is shown connecting to gNB. gNB is an entity in 5G-AN. Though it is | is shown connecting to gNB. gNB is an entity in 5G-AN. Though it is | |||
| shown as a separate block from gNB, in some cases both of these can | shown as a separate block from gNB, in some cases both of these can | |||
| be co-located. This document concerns with backhaul TN, from CSR to | be co-located. This document concerns with backhaul TN, from CSR to | |||
| UPF on N3 interface or from Staging UPF to Anchor UPF on N9 | UPF on N3 interface or from Staging UPF to Anchor UPF on N9 | |||
| interface. | interface. | |||
| Currently specified Control Plane (CP) functions - the Access and | ||||
| Mobility Management Function (AMF), the Session Management Function | ||||
| (SMF) and the User plane (UP) components gNodeB (gNB), User Plane | ||||
| Function (UPF) with N2, N3, N4, N6 and N9 interfaces are relevant to | ||||
| this document. Other Virtualized 5G control plane components NRF, | ||||
| AUSF, PCF, AUSF, UDM, NEF, and AF are not directly relevant for the | ||||
| discussion in this document and one can see the functionalities of | ||||
| these in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. | ||||
| From encapsulation perspective, N3 interface is similar to S1U in 4G/ | ||||
| LTE [TS.23.401-3GPP] network and uses GTP-U [TS.29.281-3GPP] to | ||||
| transport any UE PDUs (IPv4, IPv6, IPv4v6, Ethernet or Unstructured). | ||||
| Unlike S1U, N3 has some additional aspects as there is no bearer | ||||
| concept and no per bearer GTP-U tunnels. Instead, QoS information is | ||||
| carried in the PDU Session Container GTP-U extension header. N9 | ||||
| interface is a new interface to connect UPFs and the right user plane | ||||
| protocols for N9, including GTP-U, are being studied through 3GPP CT4 | ||||
| WG approved study item [CT4SID] for REL-16. | ||||
| TN Aware Mobility with optimized transport network functionality is | ||||
| explained below. How PPR fits in this framework in detail along with | ||||
| other various TE technologies briefly are in Section 3 and Section 4 | ||||
| respectively. | ||||
| 2.1. Discrete Approach | ||||
| In this approach transport network functionality from the 5G-AN to | ||||
| UPF is discrete and 5GS is not aware of the underlying transport | ||||
| network and the resources available. Deployment specific mapping | ||||
| function is used to map the GTP-U encapsulated traffic at the 5G-AN | ||||
| (e.g. gNB) in UL and UPF in DL direction to the appropriate transport | ||||
| slice or transport Traffic Engineered (TE) paths. These TE paths can | ||||
| be established using RSVP-TE [RFC3209] for MPLS underlay, SR | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] for both MPLS and IPv6 underlay or | ||||
| PPR [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] with MPLS, IPv6 | ||||
| with SRH, native IPv6 and native IPv4 underlays. | ||||
| As per [TS.23.501-3GPP] and [TS.23.502-3GPP] the SMF controls the | ||||
| user plane traffic forwarding rules in the UPF. The UPFs have a | ||||
| concept of a "Network Instance" which logically abstracts the | ||||
| underlying transport path. When the SMF creates the packet detection | ||||
| rules (PDR) and forwarding action rules (FAR) for a PDU session at | ||||
| the UPF, the SMF identifies the network instance through which the | ||||
| packet matching the PDR has to be forwarded. A network instance can | ||||
| be mapped to a TE path at the UPF. In this approach, TNF as shown in | ||||
| Figure 1 need not be part of the 5G Service Based Interface (SBI). | ||||
| Only management plane functionality is needed to create, monitor, | ||||
| manage and delete (life cycle management) the transport TE paths/ | ||||
| transport slices from the 5G-AN to the UPF (on N3/N9 interfaces). | ||||
| The management plane functionality also provides the mapping of such | ||||
| TE paths to a network instance identifier to the SMF. The SMF uses | ||||
| this mapping to install appropriate FARs in the UPF. This approach | ||||
| provide partial integration of the transport network into 5GS with | ||||
| some benefits. | ||||
| One of the limitations of this approach is the inability of the 5GS | ||||
| procedures to know, if underlying transport resources are available | ||||
| for the traffic type being carried in PDU session before making | ||||
| certain decisions in the 5G CP. One example scenario/decision could | ||||
| be, a target gNB selection during a N2 mobility event, without | ||||
| knowing if the target gNB is having a underlay transport slice | ||||
| resource for the S-NSSAI and 5QI of the PDU session. The Integrated | ||||
| approach specified below can mitigate this. | ||||
| 2.2. Integrated Approach | ||||
| Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) as defined in | Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) as defined in | |||
| [TS.23.501-3GPP] concerns with multiple aspects including selecting a | [TS.23.501-3GPP] concerns with multiple aspects including selecting a | |||
| network slice instance when requested by AMF based on the requested | network slice instance when requested by AMF based on the requested | |||
| SNSSAI, current location of UE, roaming indication etc. It also | SNSSAI, current location of UE, roaming indication etc. It also | |||
| notifies NF service consumers (e.g AMF) whenever the status about the | notifies NF service consumers (e.g AMF) whenever the status about the | |||
| slice availability changes. However, the scope is only in 5GC (both | slice availability changes. However, the scope is only in 5GC (both | |||
| control and user plane) and NG Radio Access network including the | control and user plane) and NG Radio Access network including the | |||
| N3IWF for the non-3GPP access. The network slice instance(s) | N3IWF for the non-3GPP access. The network slice instance(s) | |||
| selected by the NSSF are applicable at a per PDU session granularity. | selected by the NSSF are applicable at a per PDU session granularity. | |||
| An SMF and UPF are allocated from the selected slice instance during | An SMF and UPF are allocated from the selected slice instance during | |||
| the PDU session establishment procedure. [TS.23.501-3GPP] and | the PDU session establishment procedure. | |||
| [TS.23.502-3GPP] do not consider the resources and functionalities | ||||
| needed from transport network for the selection of UPF. This is seen | 2.1.1. Transport Network Function and Interfaces | |||
| as independent functionality and currently not part of 5GS. If | ||||
| transport network is not factored in an integrated fashion w.r.t | ||||
| available resources (with network characteristics from desired | ||||
| bandwidth, latency, burst size handling and optionally jitter) some | ||||
| of the gains made with optimizations through 5GNR and 5GC can be | ||||
| degraded. | ||||
| To assuage the above situation, TNF is described (Figure 1) as part | To assuage the above situation, TNF is described (Figure 1) as part | |||
| of control plane. This has the view of the underlying transport | of control plane. This has the view of the underlying transport | |||
| network with all links and nodes as well as various possible underlay | network with all links and nodes as well as various possible underlay | |||
| paths with different characteristics. TNF can be seen as supporting | paths with different characteristics. TNF can be seen as supporting | |||
| PCE functionality [RFC5440] and optionally BGP-LS [RFC7752] to get | PCE functionality [RFC5440] and optionally BGP-LS [RFC7752] to get | |||
| the TE and topology information of the underlying IGP network. | the TE and topology information of the underlying IGP network. | |||
| A south bound interface Ns is shown which interacts with the 5G | A south bound interface Ns is shown which interacts with the 5G | |||
| Access Network (e.g. gNB/CSR). 'Ns' can use one or more mechanism | Access Network (e.g. gNB/CSR). 'Ns' can use one or more mechanism | |||
| available today (PCEP [RFC5440], NETCONF [RFC6241], RESTCONF | available today (PCEP [RFC5440], NETCONF [RFC6241], RESTCONF | |||
| [RFC8040] or gNMI) to provision the L2/L3 VPNs along with TE underlay | [RFC8040] or gNMI) to provision the L2/L3 VPNs along with TE underlay | |||
| paths from gNB to UPF. Ns and Nn interfaces can be part of the | paths from gNB to UPF. Ns and Nn interfaces can be part of the | |||
| integrated 3GPP architecture, but the specification/ownership of | integrated 3GPP architecture, but the specification/ownership of | |||
| these interfaces SHOULD be left out of scope of 3GPP. | these interfaces SHOULD be left out of scope of 3GPP. | |||
| A north bound interface 'Nn' is shown from one or more of the | ||||
| transport network nodes (or ULCL/BP UPF, Anchor Point UPF) to TNF as | ||||
| shown in Figure 1. It would enable learning the TE characteristics | ||||
| of all links and nodes of the network continuously (through BGP-LS | ||||
| [RFC7752] or through a passive IGP adjacency and PCEP [RFC5440]). | ||||
| These VPNs and/or underlay TE paths MUST be similar on all 5G-AN/CSRs | These VPNs and/or underlay TE paths MUST be similar on all 5G-AN/CSRs | |||
| and UPFs concerned to allow mobility of UEs while associated with one | and UPFs concerned to allow mobility of UEs while associated with one | |||
| of the Slice/Service Types (SSTs)as defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. A | of the Slice/Service Types (SSTs)as defined in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. | |||
| north bound interface 'Nn' is shown from one or more of the transport | ||||
| network nodes (or ULCL/BP UPF, Anchor Point UPF) to TNF as shown in | Proposed TNF as part of the 5GC shown in Figure 1 can be realized | |||
| Figure 1. It would enable learning the TE characteristics of all | using Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN). ACTN | |||
| links and nodes of the network continuously (through BGP-LS [RFC7752] | architecture, underlying topology abstraction methods and | |||
| or through a passive IGP adjacency and PCEP [RFC5440]). | manageability considerations of the same are detailed in [RFC8453]. | |||
| 2.1.2. Functionality for E2E Management | ||||
| With the TNF in 5GS Service Based Interface, the following additional | With the TNF in 5GS Service Based Interface, the following additional | |||
| functionalities are required for end-2-end slice management including | functionalities are required for end-2-end slice management including | |||
| the transport network: | the transport network: | |||
| o The Specific Network Slice Selection Assistance Information | o The Specific Network Slice Selection Assistance Information | |||
| (SNSSAI) of PDU session's SHOULD be mapped to the assigned | (SNSSAI) of PDU session's SHOULD be mapped to the assigned | |||
| transport VPN and the TE path information for that slice. | transport VPN and the TE path information for that slice. | |||
| o For transport slice assignment for various SSTs (eMBB, URLLC, | o For transport slice assignment for various SSTs (eMBB, URLLC, | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶ | |||
| to a particular slice characteristics. For DL, at a PSA UPF, the | to a particular slice characteristics. For DL, at a PSA UPF, the | |||
| UE IP address is used to identify the PDU session, and hence the | UE IP address is used to identify the PDU session, and hence the | |||
| slice a packet belongs to and the IP 5 tuple can be used for | slice a packet belongs to and the IP 5 tuple can be used for | |||
| identifying the flow and QoS characteristics to be applied on the | identifying the flow and QoS characteristics to be applied on the | |||
| packet. | packet. | |||
| o If any other form of encapsulation (other than GTP-U) either on N3 | o If any other form of encapsulation (other than GTP-U) either on N3 | |||
| or N9 corresponding QFI information MUST be there in the | or N9 corresponding QFI information MUST be there in the | |||
| encapsulation header. | encapsulation header. | |||
| o In some SSC modes Section 3.4, if segmented path (gNB to | o In some SSC modes Appendix B, if segmented path (gNB to | |||
| staging/ULCL/BP-UPF to anchor-point-UPF) is needed, then | staging/ULCL/BP-UPF to anchor-point-UPF) is needed, then | |||
| corresponding path characteristics MUST be used. This includes a | corresponding path characteristics MUST be used. This includes a | |||
| path from gNB/CSR to UL-CL/BP UPF [TS.23.501-3GPP] and UL-CL/BP | path from gNB/CSR to UL-CL/BP UPF [TS.23.501-3GPP] and UL-CL/BP | |||
| UPF to eventual UPF access to DN. | UPF to eventual UPF access to DN. | |||
| o Continuous monitoring of transport path characteristics and | o Continuous monitoring of transport path characteristics and | |||
| reassignment at the endpoints MUST be performed. For all the | reassignment at the endpoints MUST be performed. For all the | |||
| affected PDU sessions, degraded transport paths need to be updated | affected PDU sessions, degraded transport paths need to be updated | |||
| dynamically with similar alternate paths. | dynamically with similar alternate paths. | |||
| o During UE mobility event similar to 4G/LTE i.e., gNB mobility (Xn | o During UE mobility event similar to 4G/LTE i.e., gNB mobility (Xn | |||
| based or N2 based), for target gNB selection, apart from radio | based or N2 based), for target gNB selection, apart from radio | |||
| resources, transport resources MUST be factored. This enables | resources, transport resources MUST be factored. This enables | |||
| handling of all PDU sessions from the UE to target gNB and this | handling of all PDU sessions from the UE to target gNB and this | |||
| require co-ordination of gNB, AMF, SMF with the TNF module. | require co-ordination of gNB, AMF, SMF with the TNF module. | |||
| Integrating the TNF as part of the 5GS Service Based Interfaces, | Integrating the TNF as part of the 5GS Service Based Interfaces, | |||
| provides the flexibility to control the allcoation of required | provides the flexibility to control the allocation of required | |||
| characteristics from the TN during a 5GS signalling procedure (e.g. | characteristics from the TN during a 5GS signaling procedure (e.g. | |||
| PDU Session Establishment). If TNF is seen as part of management | PDU Session Establishment). If TNF is seen as part of management | |||
| plane, this real time flexibility is lost. Changes to detailed | plane, this real time flexibility is lost. Changes to detailed | |||
| signaling to integrate the above for various 5GS procedures as | signaling to integrate the above for various 5GS procedures as | |||
| defined in [TS.23.502-3GPP] is beyond the scope of this document. | defined in [TS.23.502-3GPP] is beyond the scope of this document. | |||
| 2.3. Transport Network Function | 2.2. TNF as part of existing 5G Control Function | |||
| Proposed TNF as part of the 5GC shown in Figure 1 can be realized | Another solution approach with TNF in Section 2.1 and transport | |||
| using Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN). ACTN | provisioning for an engineered IP transport that supports 3GPP | |||
| architecture, underlying topology abstraction methods and | slicing and QoS requirements in [TS.23.501-3GPP] is described in this | |||
| manageability considerations of the same are detailed in [RFC8453]. | section. | |||
| During a PDU session setup, the 3GPP AMF using input from the NSSF | ||||
| selects a network slice and SMF. The SMF with user policy from | ||||
| Policy Control Function (PCF) sets 5QI (QoS parameters) and the UPF | ||||
| on the path of the PDU session. While QoS and slice selection for | ||||
| the PDU session can be applied across the 3GPP control and user plane | ||||
| functions as outlined above, the transport underlay across N3 and N9 | ||||
| segments do not have enough information to apply the resource | ||||
| constraints represented by the slicing and QoS classification. | ||||
| Current guidelines for interconnection with transport networks | ||||
| [IR.34-GSMA] provide an application mapping into DSCP. However, | ||||
| apart from problems with classification of encrypted packets, these | ||||
| recommendations do not take into consideration other aspects in | ||||
| slicing like isolation, protection and replication. | ||||
| Transport networks have their own slice and QoS configuration based | ||||
| on domain policies and the underlying network capability. Transport | ||||
| networks can enter into an agreement for virtual network services | ||||
| (VNS) with client domains using the ACTN [RFC8453] framework. The | ||||
| 3GPP mobile network, on the other side, defines a Network Slice | ||||
| Selection Management Function (NSSMF) [TS 28.533] that interacts with | ||||
| a TN domain manager (that is out of scope of 3GPP). | ||||
| The ACTN VN service can be used across the 3GPP and transport | ||||
| networks to provision and map between slices, QoS in the two domains. | ||||
| An abstraction that represents QoS and slice information in the | ||||
| mobile domain and mapped to ACTN VN service in the transport domain | ||||
| is represented here as MTNC (Mobile Transport Network Context) | ||||
| identifiers. Details of how the 3GPP domain derives the MTNC | ||||
| identifiers and how it programs it across its control and user plane | ||||
| functions are for 3GPP standards to define. For completeness, some | ||||
| minimal outlines are provided in the description below. | ||||
| When the 3GPP user plane function (gNB, UPF) does not terminate the | ||||
| transport underlay protocol (e.g., MPLS), it needs to be carried in | ||||
| the IP protocol header from end-to-end of the mobile transport | ||||
| connection (N3, N9). [I-D.ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis] discusses | ||||
| these scenarios in detail. | ||||
| Figure 2 shows a view of the functions and interfaces for | ||||
| provisioning the MTNC identifiers. The focus is on provisioning | ||||
| between the 3GPP management plane (NSSMF), transport network (SDN-C) | ||||
| and carrying the MTNC identifiers in PDU packets for the transport | ||||
| network to grant the provisioned resources. | ||||
| +----------------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 3GPP Control/Management Plane | | ||||
| | +----------------------------------------|-------+ | ||||
| | | +---------------+ | | | ||||
| | | | +-----+ NSSMF | +---+---+ | | ||||
| | | | | TNF | | | SMF | | | ||||
| | | | +--+--+ | +---+---+ | | ||||
| | | +----|----------+ | | | ||||
| | +------|---------------------------------|-------+ | ||||
| | |ACTN (RFC8453) | | ||||
| | +---+---+ | | ||||
| | | SDN-C +---+ | | ||||
| | +---+---+ | | | ||||
| | 3GPP N2/N4 ___^___ |3GPP N2/N4 | ||||
| | _____/ \_____ | | ||||
| | / \ | | ||||
| +---+--+ +--+ IP +--+ +---+--+ | ||||
| |UP-NF1|+++++++++++|PE| Backhaul |PE|+++++++++|UP-NF2| | ||||
| +------+ +--+ +--+ +------+ | ||||
| \_____ _____/ | ||||
| \ / | ||||
| ---v--- | ||||
| Figure 2: 5G Transport Plane Provisioning | ||||
| In Figure 2, the TNF (logical functionality within the NSSMF) | ||||
| requests the SDN-C in the transport domain to program the TE path | ||||
| using ACTN [RFC 8453]. The SDN-C programs the Provider Edge (PE) | ||||
| routers and internal routers according to the underlay transport | ||||
| technology (e.g., PPR, MPLS, SRv6). The PE router inspects incoming | ||||
| PDU data packets for the MTNC identifier, classifies and provides the | ||||
| VN service provisioned across the transport network. | ||||
| The detailed mechanisms by which the NSSMF provides the MTNC | ||||
| identifiers to the control plane and user plane functions are for | ||||
| 3GPP to specify. Two possible options are outlined below for | ||||
| completeness. The NSSMF may provide the MTNC identifiers to the 3GPP | ||||
| control plane by either providing it to the Session Management | ||||
| Function (SMF), and the SMF in turn provisions the user plane | ||||
| functions (UP-NF1, UP-NF2) during PDU session setup. Alternatively, | ||||
| the user plane functions may request the MTNC identifiers directly | ||||
| from the NSSMF. | ||||
| In this approach, TNF can be seen as a logical entity that can be | ||||
| part of NSSMF in the 3GPP management plane [TS.28.533-3GPP]. The | ||||
| NSSMF may use network configuration, policies, history, heuristics or | ||||
| some combination of these to derive traffic estimates that the TNF | ||||
| would use. How these estimates are derived are not in the scope of | ||||
| this document. The focus here is only in terms of how the TNF and | ||||
| SDN-C are programmed given that slice and QoS characteristics across | ||||
| a transport path can be represented by an MTNC identifier. The TNF | ||||
| requests the SDN-C in the transport network to provision paths in the | ||||
| transport domain based on the MTNC identifier. The TNF is capable of | ||||
| providing the MTNC identifier provisioned to control and user plane | ||||
| functions in the 3GPP domain. Detailed mechanisms for programming | ||||
| the MTNC identifier should be part of the 3GPP specifications. | ||||
| 2.2.1. Mobile Transport Network Context and Scalability | ||||
| The MTNC (Mobile Transport Network Context) represents a slice, QoS | ||||
| configuration for a transport path between two 3GPP user plane | ||||
| functions. The Mobile-Transport Network Context Identifier (MTNC-ID) | ||||
| is generated by the TNF to be unique for each path and per traffic | ||||
| class (including QoS and slice aspects). Thus, there may be more | ||||
| than one MTNC-ID for the same QoS and path if there is a need to | ||||
| provide isolation (slice) of the traffic. It should be noted that | ||||
| MTNC are per class/path and not per user session (nor is it per data | ||||
| path entity). The MTNC identifiers are configured by the TNF to be | ||||
| unique within a provisioning domain. | ||||
| Since the MTNC identifiers are not generated per user flow or | ||||
| session, there is no need for unique MTNC identifiers per flow/ | ||||
| session. In addition, since the traffic estimation not performed at | ||||
| the time of session establishment, there is no provisioning delay | ||||
| experienced during session setup. The MTNC identifier space scales | ||||
| as a square of the number sites between which 3GPP user plane | ||||
| functions require paths. If there are T traffic classes across N | ||||
| sites, the number of MTNC identifiers in a fully meshed network is | ||||
| (N*(N-1)/2) * T. For example, if there are 3 traffic classes between | ||||
| 25 sites, there would be at most 900 MTNC identifiers required. | ||||
| Multiple slices for the same QoS class that need to be fully | ||||
| isolated, will add to the MTNC provisioning. An MTNC identifier | ||||
| space of 16 bits (65K+ identifiers) can be expected to be sufficient. | ||||
| 2.2.2. MTNC Identifier in the Data Packet | ||||
| When the 3GPP user plane function (gNB, UPF) and transport provider | ||||
| edge are on different nodes, the PE router needs to have the means by | ||||
| which to classify the PDU packet. IP header fields such as DSCP | ||||
| (DiffServ Code Point) or the IPv6 Flow Label do not satisfy the | ||||
| requirement as they are not immutable. | ||||
| Different options for carrying the MTNC identifier in the IP data | ||||
| packet or in the existing user plane overlay like GTP-U | ||||
| [TS.29.281-3GPP] or a new overlay like GUE | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue-extensions] are possible. There are various | ||||
| trade-offs in terms of packet overhead, support in IPv4 and IPv6 | ||||
| networks as well as working across legacy and evolving transport | ||||
| networks that need to be considered. These considerations will be | ||||
| addressed in future revisions. | ||||
| 3. Using PPR as TN Underlay | 3. Using PPR as TN Underlay | |||
| In a network implementing source routing, packets may be transported | In a network implementing source routing, packets may be transported | |||
| through the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs), where a SID uniquely | through the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs), where a SID uniquely | |||
| identifies a segment as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | identifies a segment as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | |||
| Section 5.3 [I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane] lays out | Section 5.3 [I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane] lays out | |||
| all SRv6 features along with a few concerns in Section 5.3.7 of the | all SRv6 features along with a few concerns in Section 5.3.7 of the | |||
| same document. Those concerns are addressed by a new backhaul | same document. Those concerns are addressed by a new backhaul | |||
| routing mechanism called Preferred Path Routing (PPR), of which this | routing mechanism called Preferred Path Routing (PPR), of which this | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 14 ¶ | |||
| o IS-IS - [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] | o IS-IS - [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] | |||
| o OSPF - [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing] | o OSPF - [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing] | |||
| 3.1. PPR with Transport Awareness for 5GS on N3/N9 Interfaces | 3.1. PPR with Transport Awareness for 5GS on N3/N9 Interfaces | |||
| PPR does not remove GTP-U, unlike some other proposals laid out in | PPR does not remove GTP-U, unlike some other proposals laid out in | |||
| [I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane]. Instead, PPR works | [I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane]. Instead, PPR works | |||
| with the existing cellular user plane (GTP-U) for both N3 and any | with the existing cellular user plane (GTP-U) for both N3 and any | |||
| approach selected for N9 (encap or no-encap). In this scenario, PPR | approach selected for N9 (encapsulation or no-encapsulation). In | |||
| will only help providing TE benefits needed for 5G slices from | this scenario, PPR will only help providing TE benefits needed for 5G | |||
| transport domain perspective. It does so without adding any | slices from transport domain perspective. It does so without adding | |||
| additional overhead to the user plane, unlike SR-MPLS or SRv6. This | any additional overhead to the user plane, unlike SR-MPLS or SRv6. | |||
| is achieved by: | This is achieved by: | |||
| o For 3 different SSTs, 3 PPR-IDs can be signaled from any node in | o For 3 different SSTs, 3 PPR-IDs can be signaled from any node in | |||
| the transport network. For Uplink traffic, the 5G-AN will choose | the transport network. For Uplink traffic, the 5G-AN will choose | |||
| the right PPR-ID of the UPF based on the S-NSSAI the PDU Session | the right PPR-ID of the UPF based on the S-NSSAI the PDU Session | |||
| belongs to and/or the QFI (e.g. 5QI) marking on the GTP-U | belongs to and/or the QFI (e.g. 5QI) marking on the GTP-U | |||
| encapsulation header. Similarly in the Downlink direction | encapsulation header. Similarly in the Downlink direction | |||
| matching PPR-ID of the 5G-AN is chosen based on the S-NSSAI the | matching PPR-ID of the 5G-AN is chosen based on the S-NSSAI the | |||
| PDU Session belongs to. The table below shows a typical mapping: | PDU Session belongs to. The table below shows a typical mapping: | |||
| +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 28 ¶ | |||
| | values) | (ultra-low | PPR-ID-B | Req. | | | values) | (ultra-low | PPR-ID-B | Req. | | |||
| | | latency) | | Bandwidth: By | | | | latency) | | Bandwidth: By | | |||
| | | | | Delay: Dy | | | | | | Delay: Dy | | |||
| | | | | Jitter: Jy | | | | | | Jitter: Jy | | |||
| +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | |||
| | Range Zx - Zy | | | | | | Range Zx - Zy | | | | | |||
| | Z1, Z2(discrete| EMBB | PW ID/VPN info, | Non-GBR | | | Z1, Z2(discrete| EMBB | PW ID/VPN info, | Non-GBR | | |||
| | values) | (broadband)| PPR-ID-C | Bandwidth: Bx | | | values) | (broadband)| PPR-ID-C | Bandwidth: Bx | | |||
| +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | +----------------+------------+------------------+-----------------+ | |||
| Figure 2: QFI Mapping with PPR-IDs on N3/N9 | Figure 3: QFI Mapping with PPR-IDs on N3/N9 | |||
| o It is possible to have a single PPR-ID for multiple input points | o It is possible to have a single PPR-ID for multiple input points | |||
| through a PPR tree structure separate in UL and DL direction. | through a PPR tree structure separate in UL and DL direction. | |||
| o Same set of PPRs are created uniformly across all needed 5G-ANs | o Same set of PPRs are created uniformly across all needed 5G-ANs | |||
| and UPFs to allow various mobility scenarios. | and UPFs to allow various mobility scenarios. | |||
| o Any modification of TE parameters of the path, replacement path | o Any modification of TE parameters of the path, replacement path | |||
| and deleted path needed to be updated from TNF to the relevant | and deleted path needed to be updated from TNF to the relevant | |||
| ingress points. Same information can be pushed to the NSSF, and/ | ingress points. Same information can be pushed to the NSSF, and/ | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 32 ¶ | |||
| PPR also optionally allows to allocate resources that are to be | PPR also optionally allows to allocate resources that are to be | |||
| reserved along the preferred path. These resources are required in | reserved along the preferred path. These resources are required in | |||
| some cases (for some 5G SSTs with stringent GBR and latency | some cases (for some 5G SSTs with stringent GBR and latency | |||
| requirements) not only for providing committed bandwidth or | requirements) not only for providing committed bandwidth or | |||
| deterministic latency, but also for assuring overall service level | deterministic latency, but also for assuring overall service level | |||
| guarantee in the network. This approach does not require per-hop | guarantee in the network. This approach does not require per-hop | |||
| provisioning and reduces the OPEX by minimizing the number of | provisioning and reduces the OPEX by minimizing the number of | |||
| protocols needed and allows dynamism with Fast-ReRoute (FRR) | protocols needed and allows dynamism with Fast-ReRoute (FRR) | |||
| capabilities. | capabilities. | |||
| 3.4. PPR with various 5G Mobility procedures | ||||
| PPR fulfills the needs of 5GS to transport the user plane traffic | ||||
| from 5G-AN to UPF in all 3 SSC modes defined [TS.23.501-3GPP]. This | ||||
| is done in keeping the backhaul network at par with 5G slicing | ||||
| requirements that are applicable to Radio and virtualized core | ||||
| network to create a truly end-to-end slice path for 5G traffic. When | ||||
| UE moves across the 5G-AN (e.g. from one gNB to another gNB), there | ||||
| is no transport network reconfiguration required with the approach | ||||
| above. | ||||
| SSC mode would be specified/defaulted by SMF. No change in the mode | ||||
| once connection is initiated and this property is not altered here. | ||||
| 3.4.1. SSC Mode1 | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---+--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+--------------+ | ||||
| N1 | | | | | ||||
| +--------+ N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| + +---+---+ +--++ +-+--+---+ +----+ | ||||
| UE1 |gNB+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N6--+ DN | | ||||
| == +---+ +---+ +--------+ +----+ | ||||
| Figure 3: SSC Mode1 with integrated Transport Slice Function | ||||
| After UE1 moved to another gNB in the same UPF serving area | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---_--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+--------------+ | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| +----+--+ +-+-+ ++--+----+ +----+ | ||||
| |gNB1+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N6--+ DN | | ||||
| +----+ +---+ +---+----+ +----+ | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| +----+ +--++ | | ||||
| UE1 |gNB2+======+CSR+------N3--------+ | ||||
| == +----+ +---+ | ||||
| Figure 4: SSC Mode1 with integrated Transport Slice Function | ||||
| In this mode, IP address at the UE is preserved during mobility | ||||
| events. This is similar to 4G/LTE mechanism and for respective | ||||
| slices, corresponding PPR-ID (TE Path) has to be assigned to the | ||||
| packet at UL and DL direction. During Xn mobility as shown above, | ||||
| source gNB has to additionally ensure transport path's resources from | ||||
| TNF are available at the target gNB apart from radio resources check | ||||
| (at decision and request phase of Xn/N2 mobility scenario). | ||||
| 3.4.2. SSC Mode2 | ||||
| In this case, if IP Address is changed during mobility (different UPF | ||||
| area), then corresponding PDU session is released. No session | ||||
| continuity from the network is provided and this is designed as an | ||||
| application offload and application manages the session continuity, | ||||
| if needed. For PDU Session, Service Request and Mobility cases | ||||
| mechanism to select the transport resource and the PPR-ID (TE Path) | ||||
| is similar to SSC Mode1. | ||||
| 3.4.3. SSC Mode3 | ||||
| In this mode, new IP address may be assigned because of UE moved to | ||||
| another UPF coverage area. Network ensures UE suffers no loss of | ||||
| 'connectivity'. A connection through new PDU session anchor point is | ||||
| established before the connection is terminated for better service | ||||
| continuity. There are two ways in which this happens. | ||||
| o Change of SSC Mode 3 PDU Session Anchor with multiple PDU | ||||
| Sessions. | ||||
| o Change of SSC Mode 3 PDU Session Anchor with IPv6 multi-homed PDU | ||||
| Session. | ||||
| In the first mode, from user plane perspective, the two PDU sessions | ||||
| are independent and the use of PPR-ID by gNB and UPFs is exactly | ||||
| similar to SSC Mode 1 described above. The following paragraphs | ||||
| describe the IPv6 multi-homed PDU session case for SSC Mode 3. | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---+--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-----------+--+ | ||||
| N1 | | | | | | ||||
| to-UE+----+ N2 +-------Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 N4| | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| +-------+--+ +--+-------+--+ +-----+-+ | ||||
| |gNB/CSR +---N3---+ BP UPF +-N9--+ UPF +-N6-- | ||||
| +----------+ +----------+--+ +-------+ to DN | ||||
| | +----+ | ||||
| +-| DN | | ||||
| N6 +----+ | ||||
| Figure 5: SSC Mode3 and Service Continuity | ||||
| In the uplink direction for the traffic offloading from the Branching | ||||
| Point UPF, packet has to reach to the right exit UPF. In this case | ||||
| packet gets re-encapsulated by the BP UPF (with either GTP-U or the | ||||
| chosen encapsulation) after bit rate enforcement and LI, towards the | ||||
| anchor UPF. At this point packet has to be on the appropriate VPN/PW | ||||
| to the anchor UPF. This mapping is done based on the S-NSSAI the PDU | ||||
| session belongs to and/or the QFI marking in the GTPU encapsulation | ||||
| header (e.g. 5QI value) to the PPR-ID of the exit node by selecting | ||||
| the respective TE PPR-ID (PPR path) of the UPF. If it's a non-MPLS | ||||
| underlay, destination IP address of the encapsulation header would be | ||||
| the mapped PPR-ID (TE path). | ||||
| In the downlink direction for the incoming packet, UPF has to | ||||
| encapsulate the packet (with either GTP-U or the chosen | ||||
| encapsulation) to reach the BP UPF. Here mapping is done based on | ||||
| the S-NSSAI the PDU session belongs, to the PPR-ID (TE Path) of the | ||||
| BP UPF. If it's a non-MPLS underlay, destination IP address of the | ||||
| encapsulation header would be the mapped PPR-ID (TE path). In | ||||
| summary: | ||||
| o Respective PPR-ID on N3 and N9 has to be selected with correct | ||||
| transport characteristics from TNF. | ||||
| o For N2 based mobility SMF has to ensure transport resources are | ||||
| available for N3 Interface to new BP UPF and from there the | ||||
| original anchor point UPF. | ||||
| o For Service continuity with multi-homed PDU session same transport | ||||
| network characteristics of the original PDU session (both on N3 | ||||
| and N9) need to be observed for the newly configured IPv6 | ||||
| prefixes. | ||||
| 4. Other TE Technologies Applicability | 4. Other TE Technologies Applicability | |||
| RSVP-TE [RFC3209] provides a lean transport overhead for the TE path | RSVP-TE [RFC3209] provides a lean transport overhead for the TE path | |||
| for MPLS user plane. However, it is perceived as less dynamic in | for MPLS user plane. However, it is perceived as less dynamic in | |||
| some cases and has some provisioning overhead across all the nodes in | some cases and has some provisioning overhead across all the nodes in | |||
| N3 and N9 interface nodes. Also it has another drawback with | N3 and N9 interface nodes. Also it has another drawback with | |||
| excessive state refresh overhead across adjacent nodes and this can | excessive state refresh overhead across adjacent nodes and this can | |||
| be mitigated with [RFC8370]. | be mitigated with [RFC8370]. | |||
| SR-TE [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] does not explicitly signal | SR-TE [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] does not explicitly signal | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 9 ¶ | |||
| MPLS allows reduction of the control protocols to one IGP (with out | MPLS allows reduction of the control protocols to one IGP (with out | |||
| needing for LDP and RSVP-TE). | needing for LDP and RSVP-TE). | |||
| However, as specified above with PPR (Section 3), in the integrated | However, as specified above with PPR (Section 3), in the integrated | |||
| transport network function (TNF) a particular RSVP-TE path for MPLS | transport network function (TNF) a particular RSVP-TE path for MPLS | |||
| or SR path for MPLS and IPv6 with SRH user plane, can be supplied to | or SR path for MPLS and IPv6 with SRH user plane, can be supplied to | |||
| SMF for mapping a particular PDU session to the transport path. | SMF for mapping a particular PDU session to the transport path. | |||
| 5. Acknowledgements | 5. Acknowledgements | |||
| Thanks to Young Lee and John Kaippallimalil for discussions on this | Thanks to Young Lee for discussions on this document including ACTN | |||
| document including ACTN applicability for the proposed TNF. Thanks | applicability for the proposed TNF. Thanks to Sri Gundavelli and | |||
| to Sri Gundavelli and 3GPP delegates who provided detailed feedback | 3GPP delegates who provided detailed feedback on this document. | |||
| on this document. | ||||
| 6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document has no requests for any IANA code point allocations. | This document has no requests for any IANA code point allocations. | |||
| 7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
| This document does not introduce any new security issues. | This document does not introduce any new security issues. | |||
| 8. Contributing Authors | 8. Contributing Authors | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 16 ¶ | |||
| Bogineni, K., Akhavain, A., Herbert, T., Farinacci, D., | Bogineni, K., Akhavain, A., Herbert, T., Farinacci, D., | |||
| Rodriguez-Natal, A., Carofiglio, G., Auge, J., | Rodriguez-Natal, A., Carofiglio, G., Auge, J., | |||
| Muscariello, L., Camarillo, P., and S. Homma, "Optimized | Muscariello, L., Camarillo, P., and S. Homma, "Optimized | |||
| Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G", draft-bogineni-dmm- | Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G", draft-bogineni-dmm- | |||
| optimized-mobile-user-plane-01 (work in progress), June | optimized-mobile-user-plane-01 (work in progress), June | |||
| 2018. | 2018. | |||
| [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] | [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] | |||
| Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras, | Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras, | |||
| L., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS", | L., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS", | |||
| draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-02 (work in | draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-03 (work in | |||
| progress), February 2019. | progress), May 2019. | |||
| [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing] | [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing] | |||
| Chunduri, U., Qu, Y., White, R., Tantsura, J., and L. | Chunduri, U., Qu, Y., White, R., Tantsura, J., and L. | |||
| Contreras, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in OSPF", draft- | Contreras, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in OSPF", draft- | |||
| chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing-02 (work in | chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing-03 (work in | |||
| progress), February 2019. | progress), May 2019. | |||
| [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network] | [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network] | |||
| Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and U. Chunduri, "LISP | Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and U. Chunduri, "LISP | |||
| for the Mobile Network", draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile- | for the Mobile Network", draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile- | |||
| network-04 (work in progress), September 2018. | network-05 (work in progress), March 2019. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis] | ||||
| Homma, S., Miyasaka, T., Matsushima, S., and d. | ||||
| daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "User Plane Protocol and | ||||
| Architectural Analysis on 3GPP 5G System", draft-ietf-dmm- | ||||
| 5g-uplane-analysis-02 (work in progress), July 2019. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane] | [I-D.ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane] | |||
| Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Kohno, M., Camarillo, P., | Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Kohno, M., Camarillo, P., | |||
| daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., and C. Perkins, "Segment Routing | daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., and C. Perkins, "Segment Routing | |||
| IPv6 for Mobile User Plane", draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile- | IPv6 for Mobile User Plane", draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile- | |||
| uplane-03 (work in progress), October 2018. | uplane-05 (work in progress), July 2019. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue-extensions] | ||||
| Herbert, T., Yong, L., and F. Templin, "Extensions for | ||||
| Generic UDP Encapsulation", draft-ietf-intarea-gue- | ||||
| extensions-06 (work in progress), March 2019. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | |||
| Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing | Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing | |||
| Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work | Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work | |||
| in progress), January 2018. | in progress), January 2018. | |||
| [IR.34-GSMA] | ||||
| GSM Association (GSMA), "Guidelines for IPX Provider | ||||
| Networks (Previously Inter-Service Provider IP Backbone | ||||
| Guidelines, Version 14.0", August 2018. | ||||
| [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., | [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., | |||
| and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | |||
| Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, | Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. | |||
| [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | |||
| Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, | Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 20, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 29 ¶ | |||
| [TS.23.502-3GPP] | [TS.23.502-3GPP] | |||
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "Procedures for | 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "Procedures for | |||
| 5G System; Stage 2, 3GPP TS 23.502, v2.0.0", December | 5G System; Stage 2, 3GPP TS 23.502, v2.0.0", December | |||
| 2017. | 2017. | |||
| [TS.23.503-3GPP] | [TS.23.503-3GPP] | |||
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "Policy and | 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "Policy and | |||
| Charging Control System for 5G Framework; Stage 2, 3GPP TS | Charging Control System for 5G Framework; Stage 2, 3GPP TS | |||
| 23.503 v1.0.0", December 2017. | 23.503 v1.0.0", December 2017. | |||
| [TS.28.533-3GPP] | ||||
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "Management and | ||||
| Orchestration Architecture Framework (Release 15)", June | ||||
| 2018. | ||||
| [TS.29.281-3GPP] | [TS.29.281-3GPP] | |||
| 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "GPRS Tunneling | 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "GPRS Tunneling | |||
| Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U), 3GPP TS 29.281 v15.1.0", | Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U), 3GPP TS 29.281 v15.1.0", | |||
| December 2017. | December 2018. | |||
| Appendix A. Appendix: New Control Plane and User Planes | Appendix A. New Control Plane and User Planes | |||
| A.1. LISP and PPR | A.1. Slice aware Mobility: Discrete Approach | |||
| PPR can also be used with LISP control plane for 3GPP as described in | In this approach transport network functionality from the 5G-AN to | |||
| [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network]. This can be achieved by mapping | UPF is discrete and 5GS is not aware of the underlying transport | |||
| the UE IP address (EID) to PPR-ID, which acts as Routing Locator | network and the resources available. Deployment specific mapping | |||
| (RLOC). Any encapsulation supported by LISP can work well with PPR. | function is used to map the GTP-U encapsulated traffic at the 5G-AN | |||
| If the RLOC refers to an IPv4 or IPv6 destination address in the LISP | (e.g. gNB) in UL and UPF in DL direction to the appropriate transport | |||
| encapsulated header, packets are transported on the preferred path in | slice or transport Traffic Engineered (TE) paths. These TE paths can | |||
| the network as opposed to traditional shortest path routing with no | be established using RSVP-TE [RFC3209] for MPLS underlay, SR | |||
| additional user plane overhead related to TE path in the network | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] for both MPLS and IPv6 underlay or | |||
| layer. | PPR [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] with MPLS, IPv6 | |||
| with SRH, native IPv6 and native IPv4 underlays. | ||||
| Some of the distinct advantages of the LISP approach is, its | As per [TS.23.501-3GPP] and [TS.23.502-3GPP] the SMF controls the | |||
| scalability, support for service continuity in SSC Mode3 as well as | user plane traffic forwarding rules in the UPF. The UPFs have a | |||
| native support for session continuity (session survivable mobility). | concept of a "Network Instance" which logically abstracts the | |||
| Various other advantages are documented at | underlying transport path. When the SMF creates the packet detection | |||
| [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mobile-network]. | rules (PDR) and forwarding action rules (FAR) for a PDU session at | |||
| the UPF, the SMF identifies the network instance through which the | ||||
| packet matching the PDR has to be forwarded. A network instance can | ||||
| be mapped to a TE path at the UPF. In this approach, TNF as shown in | ||||
| Figure 1 need not be part of the 5G Service Based Interface (SBI). | ||||
| Only management plane functionality is needed to create, monitor, | ||||
| manage and delete (life cycle management) the transport TE paths/ | ||||
| transport slices from the 5G-AN to the UPF (on N3/N9 interfaces). | ||||
| The management plane functionality also provides the mapping of such | ||||
| TE paths to a network instance identifier to the SMF. The SMF uses | ||||
| this mapping to install appropriate FARs in the UPF. This approach | ||||
| provide partial integration of the transport network into 5GS with | ||||
| some benefits. | ||||
| A.2. ILA and PPR | One of the limitations of this approach is the inability of the 5GS | |||
| procedures to know, if underlying transport resources are available | ||||
| for the traffic type being carried in PDU session before making | ||||
| certain decisions in the 5G CP. One example scenario/decision could | ||||
| be, a target gNB selection during a N2 mobility event, without | ||||
| knowing if the target gNB is having a underlay transport slice | ||||
| resource for the S-NSSAI and 5QI of the PDU session. The Integrated | ||||
| approach specified below can mitigate this. | ||||
| If an ILA-prefix is allowed to refer to a PPR-ID, ILA can be | Appendix B. PPR with various 5G Mobility procedures | |||
| leveraged with all the benefits (including mobility) that it | ||||
| provides. This works fine in the DL direction as packet is destined | PPR fulfills the needs of 5GS to transport the user plane traffic | |||
| to UE IP address at UPF. However, in the UL direction, packet is | from 5G-AN to UPF in all 3 SSC modes defined [TS.23.501-3GPP]. This | |||
| destined to an external internet address (SIR Prefix to ILA Prefix | is done in keeping the backhaul network at par with 5G slicing | |||
| transformation happens on the Source address of the original UE | requirements that are applicable to Radio and virtualized core | |||
| packet). One way to route the packet with out bringing the complete | network to create a truly end-to-end slice path for 5G traffic. When | |||
| DFZ BGP routing table is by doing a default route to the UPF (ILA-R). | UE moves across the 5G-AN (e.g. from one gNB to another gNB), there | |||
| In this case, how TE can be achieved is TBD (to be expanded further | is no transport network reconfiguration required with the approach | |||
| with details). | above. | |||
| SSC mode would be specified/defaulted by SMF. No change in the mode | ||||
| once connection is initiated and this property is not altered here. | ||||
| B.1. SSC Mode1 | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---+--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+--------------+ | ||||
| N1 | | | | | ||||
| +--------+ N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| + +---+---+ +--++ +-+--+---+ +----+ | ||||
| UE1 |gNB+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N6--+ DN | | ||||
| == +---+ +---+ +--------+ +----+ | ||||
| Figure 4: SSC Mode1 with integrated Transport Slice Function | ||||
| After UE1 moved to another gNB in the same UPF serving area | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---_--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+--------------+ | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| N2 +----Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| +----+--+ +-+-+ ++--+----+ +----+ | ||||
| |gNB1+======+CSR+------N3-----+ UPF +-N6--+ DN | | ||||
| +----+ +---+ +---+----+ +----+ | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| | | ||||
| +----+ +--++ | | ||||
| UE1 |gNB2+======+CSR+------N3--------+ | ||||
| == +----+ +---+ | ||||
| Figure 5: SSC Mode1 with integrated Transport Slice Function | ||||
| In this mode, IP address at the UE is preserved during mobility | ||||
| events. This is similar to 4G/LTE mechanism and for respective | ||||
| slices, corresponding PPR-ID (TE Path) has to be assigned to the | ||||
| packet at UL and DL direction. During Xn mobility as shown above, | ||||
| source gNB has to additionally ensure transport path's resources from | ||||
| TNF are available at the target gNB apart from radio resources check | ||||
| (at decision and request phase of Xn/N2 mobility scenario). | ||||
| B.2. SSC Mode2 | ||||
| In this case, if IP Address is changed during mobility (different UPF | ||||
| area), then corresponding PDU session is released. No session | ||||
| continuity from the network is provided and this is designed as an | ||||
| application offload and application manages the session continuity, | ||||
| if needed. For PDU Session, Service Request and Mobility cases | ||||
| mechanism to select the transport resource and the PPR-ID (TE Path) | ||||
| is similar to SSC Mode1. | ||||
| B.3. SSC Mode3 | ||||
| In this mode, new IP address may be assigned because of UE moved to | ||||
| another UPF coverage area. Network ensures UE suffers no loss of | ||||
| 'connectivity'. A connection through new PDU session anchor point is | ||||
| established before the connection is terminated for better service | ||||
| continuity. There are two ways in which this happens. | ||||
| o Change of SSC Mode 3 PDU Session Anchor with multiple PDU | ||||
| Sessions. | ||||
| o Change of SSC Mode 3 PDU Session Anchor with IPv6 multi-homed PDU | ||||
| Session. | ||||
| In the first mode, from user plane perspective, the two PDU sessions | ||||
| are independent and the use of PPR-ID by gNB and UPFs is exactly | ||||
| similar to SSC Mode 1 described above. The following paragraphs | ||||
| describe the IPv6 multi-homed PDU session case for SSC Mode 3. | ||||
| +---+----+ +-----+ +----------------+ | ||||
| | AMF | | TNF | | SMF | | ||||
| +---+--+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-----------+--+ | ||||
| N1 | | | | | | ||||
| to-UE+----+ N2 +-------Ns---+ +-Nn-+ N4 N4| | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| +-------+--+ +--+-------+--+ +-----+-+ | ||||
| |gNB/CSR +---N3---+ BP UPF +-N9--+ UPF +-N6-- | ||||
| +----------+ +----------+--+ +-------+ to DN | ||||
| | +----+ | ||||
| +-| DN | | ||||
| N6 +----+ | ||||
| Figure 6: SSC Mode3 and Service Continuity | ||||
| In the uplink direction for the traffic offloading from the Branching | ||||
| Point UPF, packet has to reach to the right exit UPF. In this case | ||||
| packet gets re-encapsulated by the BP UPF (with either GTP-U or the | ||||
| chosen encapsulation) after bit rate enforcement and LI, towards the | ||||
| anchor UPF. At this point packet has to be on the appropriate VPN/PW | ||||
| to the anchor UPF. This mapping is done based on the S-NSSAI the PDU | ||||
| session belongs to and/or the QFI marking in the GTPU encapsulation | ||||
| header (e.g. 5QI value) to the PPR-ID of the exit node by selecting | ||||
| the respective TE PPR-ID (PPR path) of the UPF. If it's a non-MPLS | ||||
| underlay, destination IP address of the encapsulation header would be | ||||
| the mapped PPR-ID (TE path). | ||||
| In the downlink direction for the incoming packet, UPF has to | ||||
| encapsulate the packet (with either GTP-U or the chosen | ||||
| encapsulation) to reach the BP UPF. Here mapping is done based on | ||||
| the S-NSSAI the PDU session belongs, to the PPR-ID (TE Path) of the | ||||
| BP UPF. If it's a non-MPLS underlay, destination IP address of the | ||||
| encapsulation header would be the mapped PPR-ID (TE path). In | ||||
| summary: | ||||
| o Respective PPR-ID on N3 and N9 has to be selected with correct | ||||
| transport characteristics from TNF. | ||||
| o For N2 based mobility SMF has to ensure transport resources are | ||||
| available for N3 Interface to new BP UPF and from there the | ||||
| original anchor point UPF. | ||||
| o For Service continuity with multi-homed PDU session same transport | ||||
| network characteristics of the original PDU session (both on N3 | ||||
| and N9) need to be observed for the newly configured IPv6 | ||||
| prefixes. | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Uma Chunduri (editor) | Uma Chunduri (editor) | |||
| Huawei USA | Futurewei | |||
| 2330 Central Expressway | 2330 Central Expressway | |||
| Santa Clara, CA 95050 | Santa Clara, CA 95050 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com | Email: umac.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Richard Li | Richard Li | |||
| Huawei USA | Futurewei | |||
| 2330 Central Expressway | 2330 Central Expressway | |||
| Santa Clara, CA 95050 | Santa Clara, CA 95050 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: renwei.li@huawei.com | Email: richard.li@futurewei.com | |||
| Sridhar Bhaskaran | Sridhar Bhaskaran | |||
| Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd | Altiostar | |||
| Survey No.37, Whitefield Road, Kundalahalli | ||||
| Bengaluru, Karnataka | ||||
| India | ||||
| Email: sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com | Email: sridhar.bhaskaran@gmail.com | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Apstra, Inc. | Apstra, Inc. | |||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Luis M. Contreras | Luis M. Contreras | |||
| Telefonica | Telefonica | |||
| Sur-3 building, 3rd floor | Sur-3 building, 3rd floor | |||
| Madrid 28050 | Madrid 28050 | |||
| skipping to change at page 22, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 21 ¶ | |||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Luis M. Contreras | Luis M. Contreras | |||
| Telefonica | Telefonica | |||
| Sur-3 building, 3rd floor | Sur-3 building, 3rd floor | |||
| Madrid 28050 | Madrid 28050 | |||
| Spain | Spain | |||
| Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com | Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com | |||
| Praveen Muley | Praveen Muley | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| 440 North Bernardo Ave | 440 North Bernardo Ave | |||
| Mountain View, CA 94043 | Mountain View, CA 94043 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com | Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com | |||
| John Kaippallimalil | ||||
| Futurewei | ||||
| 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 600 | ||||
| Plano, TX 75024 | ||||
| USA | ||||
| Email: john.kaippallimalil@futurewei.com | ||||
| End of changes. 53 change blocks. | ||||
| 346 lines changed or deleted | 491 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||