Subject: [5gangip] BOF notes...

From: David Allan I <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:08:41 +0000

HI

Attached are the notes from today’s BOF

Cheers
Dave

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:25:21 -0500

Thanks Dave for the notes, it is an excellent piece of work!

I am posting the same notes in text format in case you don't have MS Word below.

A few corrections:
It was a Bar BoF or Side Meeting.
The attendance was 53 and there were 4 people in the MeetEcho.

Thanks again to all speakers, those who attended, my co-chair, Dirk
von Hugo who could not attend but did all the background work for me
to function smoothly.

Here are the notes for IETF 96 BarBoF:

5gangip BOF, Tuesday 12:45-1:45

Dave Allan/Scribe

~40 in the room

Opening Comments

Would like to shift more and more towards IETF draft discussions.
Develop a level of maturity to transition to BOF/WG.

5G Technology with respect to IETF/IRTF/RGs (Frank Fitzek)

Overview of 5G use cases, where the money will come from.

Minimizing latency is big.  Control of cyber-physical systems.
10Gbps/1msec each is difficult, want both at the same time.  Need to
consider network and cloud in addition to air interface.

Everything before 5G connected people, 5G connects things. Tactile
internet.  For games latency superior to data rate.  Very funny to see
folks try to catch a ball with an additional 15msec of latency.

Use cases – drones/smart grids/farming/connected carsàplatooning.

Linear systems, and 2nd order behavior example of platooning oscillating.

Examples of IETF activities mapped  onto the 5G “atom” (set of
required initiatives)

Q&A deferred to the end.

Presenting a 5G Ready ILA Solution (Tom Herbert)

Draft-mueller-ila-mobile-00, draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-00.

I-L split based on ILNP. Mapping database is the important component.
Size of the table corresponds to the number of objects. Control plane
distributes the mappings.  Isn’t this DNS? It is like DNS but not DNS.
It is a generic problem, trying to map virtual to physical addresses.
At Facebook we are intending to deploy ILA.

Send packets untranslated, hits an ILA router which translates the
locator portion, and forwards the packet. With a re-direct mechanism
we can eliminate dog-leg forwarding.

Advantages: no encap/no changes to transport layer/open source
implementationàILA router in XDP and now over VPP.

Requirements à mobility handoff/ILA functions in the network/control plane

GW and BR as ILA routers, could be pushed out to Aps

Hierarchical implementation partitions the 64 bit space.

Moving the applications into the network, closer to the end system is the goal.

5G Slicing and Related Issues (Peter Ashwood-Smith)

Whys and whats of slicing. Different QOS and QoE requirements. IoT,
smart phones etc. Very fast mobility (Doppler effects). OFDM won’t
work, but what does work is not efficient for relatively static
devices.

Leads to slicing right out to spectrum usage.

Multiple perspectives, UE centric and network centric. Network is a
set of subsets of network resources.

UE centric view, single slice, virtualization in the UE, multiple
slices to a single UE instance.

>From a network view, you have a set of subsets. The set of dedicated
resources E2E network/compute etc.

Slices do not have to have common classes or instances of resources.
May wish to move resources from slice to slice, for example spectrum.
Changing spectrum allocations ripples through the resource model and
this has to be seamless.

ICN and LISP are interesting, but may require UE changes. Slicing will
drive UE changes.

Overview of lots of IETF areas that 5G could benefit from.

LISP EID Mobility (Dino Faranicci)

Most LISP mobility features documented in 3 I-Ds.  LISP is turning 10
in the fall.

Why LISP is a solution. Two forms of separation, near hitless handoff.

One chart overview of LISP. EIDs, XTRs etc.

Host routes as a non-starter solution.

Notion of home.

Concept of locator/identifier separation. EIDS & RLOCs

Two forms of split EID/RLOC collocated in same entity. EID mobile, RLOC static.

LISP WG is not recommending mobile node. (draft-portholes…)

Predictive RLOCs… if you know where you are going…you can mitigate
mobility impacts.

Suggests LISP between the S and P-GWs.  Best solution is to keep it
close to the moving entity with the functions as close to the edge as
possible.

Global Locator/local Locator and Identifier Split (Michael Menth/ Uni Tuebingen)

A different flavor of split than LISP or ILA.  I’ll concentrate on the
differences. Work done about 8 years ago.

GLI nodes and GLI gateways have an identifier for ID and a local
locator for routing in edge networks. GLI GWs have a global locator
which is used for routing in an IPv6 backbone.

We have interworking concepts with trad IPv6 networks.

ID used to look up a local locator using a local mapping service.
Global locators are a separate system. 3 address types, ID only, Local
address and Global address. Can change local attachment without
changing global address.

In example, if a local mapping not found, try the global system. The
technique is suggested to allow asymmetrical mappings for global
forwarding.  Has some similarities to LISP.

GLI does not need triangle routing, and the address rewriting does not
need session state.

Split is attractive, but multiple ways to do it.

Q&A

Peter: in any solution it is all about the DP and not the mapping
system. That is always the Achilles heel.  Mike: we have papers
providing overviews of different mapping systems. Must be reliable,
scale, secure…

Dino: This is the theme the last 5 years. Argue about DPs and put the
magic over there. Concluded we’d use DDT for LISP uses the iterative
lookup mechanism of DNS.

Tom: A more general question. Use case for 5G is impressive. Yadda
yadda.  Where do we go from here? A BOF or what?  Behcet: write
drafts, you can address them to 5gandip… For now we will continue with
presentations like this as we explore the 5G space. Maybe a BOF next
year. Tom: The date I’ve heard for 5G is 2020, so we have a lot of
work to do.

Behcet: We’ve not touched on IoT or vehicular.

Dino: When is 5G going to be a WG, as until then this will not be
taken seriously.

 What about 3GPP.

Natasha: I‘m not a 3GPP speaker. Everything below IP is 3GPP, IP and
above is here. That’s the view presented to me. I’d like to see a crap
version of a draft charter. We can then argue about it and see if it
is worth doing. Could aim for march. Enough people to argue a charter.

Dan: Not sure if I’m to write a charter etc. not sure where it would
belong. Disparity of relevant venues within the IETF.  Need to
crystalize this.

Lionel: It is time for defining what IETF should do, not
presentations. 3GPP will not wait for 2 years for solutions. We have
pre-5G protocol work. Work on CP-DP separation. If you do not have a
concrete work plan soon, this will be useless. (clapping).

Behcet: So we should hurry up…. Yes.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, David Allan I
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 08:36:02 -0700

> LISP WG is not recommending mobile node. (draft-portholes…)

Let me clarify this point. LISP can be placed in many different network element types but when it started out 10 years ago it was defined as a network based solution. Meaning it could be placed in routers/switches/APs/etc. 

LISP-MN is the first occurence where it is suggested that LISP run in an end-host (in the 5G use-case, the UE).

Also note, all 3 Internet Drafts I referred to are not working group documents. But EID mobility is in the new charter for the LISP WG.

Dino

---

From: AshwoodsmithPeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:01:43 +0000

Dave thanks for the comprehensive notes.

One minor point. Either I misspoke or you misheard but the following:

"OFDM wont work"

Should be

"A single OFDM set of parameters wont work"

Essentially I was trying to explain how several different paramatarizations of a general purpose technique like OFDM were required to support the different use cases.

Cheers

Peter

Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
From: David Allan I
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>;
Subject: [5gangip] BOF notes...

Time: 2016-07-19 14:09:18
HI

Cheers
Dave
Dave thanks for the comprehensive notes.

One minor point. Either I misspoke or you misheard but the following:

"OFDM wont work"

Should be

"A single OFDM set of parameters wont work"

Essentially I was trying to explain how several different paramatarizations of a general purpose technique like OFDM were required to support the different use cases.

Cheers

Peter

Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
From: David Allan I
To: [email-masked];
Subject: [5gangip] BOF notes...

Time: 2016-07-19 14:09:18
HI

Cheers
Dave