Internet DRAFT - draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis
DMM Working Group S. Homma
Internet-Draft NTT
Intended status: Informational T. Miyasaka
Expires: April 25, 2019 KDDI Research
S. Matsushima
SoftBank
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
October 22, 2018
User Plane Protocol and Architectural Analysis on 3GPP 5G System
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
Abstract
This document analyzes the mobile user plane protocol and the
architecture specified in 3GPP 5G documents. The analysis work is to
clarify those specifications, extract protocol and architectural
requirements and derive evaluation aspects for user plane protocols
on IETF side. This work is corresponding to the User Plane Protocol
Study work on 3GPP side.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Current Status of Mobile User Plane for 5G . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Our Way of Analysis Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. GTP-U Specification and Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. GTP-U Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. GTP-U Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Control Plane Protocol for GTP-U . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. GTP-U message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5. Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. Observations Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 5GS Architectural Requirements for User Plane Protocols . . . 16
4.1. Overview of 5G System Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1. UPF Functionalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Architectural Requirements for User Plane Protocols . 19
5. Evaluation Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Supporting PDU Session Type Variations . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2. Nature of Data Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. Supporting Transport Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Data Path Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.5. QoS Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6. Traffic Detection and Flow Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.7. Supporting Network Slicing Diversity . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
This document analyzes the mobile user plane protocol and the
architecture specified by 3GPP 5G documents. The background of the
work is that 3GPP requests through a liaison statement that the IETF
to provide any information for the User Plane Protocol Study work in
3GPP [CP-180116-3GPP]. Justification and the objectives of the study
can be found from [CP-173160-3GPP].
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
We understand that the current user plane protocol, GTP-U
[TS.29.281-3GPP], has been well developed in 3GPP, and deployed very
widely as the successor of legacy network technologies, such as TDM
circuit, or ATM virtual circuit. That GTP-U success seems based on
IP overlay technique that is dramatically scaled compare to the
previous ones because it successfully isolates mobile session states
from the user plane transport network.
Even after that big success, it is definitely worth that 3GPP has
decided to revisit user plane which seems to response to IPv6
deployment growth and [IAB-Statement] that encourages the industry to
develop strategies for IPv6-only operation. It can be seen from the
justification section in [CP-173160-3GPP].
The study description mentions that the study would be based on
Release 16 requirement while only Release 15 specifications has been
available now. However we believe that to provide adequate
information for 3GPP, we need to clearly understand what the current
user plane protocol is in Release 15, and architectural requirements
for the user plane.
As the liaison statement indicates 3GPP specifications related to
user plane, those documents should be a good start point to clarify
their specifications and to extract protocol and architectural
requirements from them.
1.1. Current Status of Mobile User Plane for 5G
3GPP RAN and CT4 decided to use GTP-U as the 5G user plane
encapsulation protocol over N3 and N9 that respectively described
in[TS.38.300-3GPP] and [TR.29.891-3GPP]. N3 is an interface between
RAN and UPF and N9 is an interface between different UPFs
[TS.23.501-3GPP].
In [TR.29.891-3GPP], it captured user plane requirements and
concluded that GTP-U is adopted for the user plane protocol. It
seems that GTP-U was only option to be chose and it focused on how to
carry 5G specific QoS information between UPF and access networks.
That is described in section 5.2 and 11.2 of [TR.29.891-3GPP].
Another aspects of user plane requirements couldn't be found.
1.2. Our Way of Analysis Work
First, we analyze [TS.29.281-3GPP] for clarifying it as the current
user plane protocol in the 5G system. [TR.29.891-3GPP] describes how
GTP-U is selected as the user plane protocol for 5G in 3GPP.
Clarified characteristics of the protocol are described in Section 3.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
Then, to clarify what are required to the user plane protocol in
architecture level, we analyze [TS.23.501-3GPP] as the 5G system
architecture specification. [TS.23.502-3GPP] is the specification of
system procedures that helps us to understand how the system works in
the architecture. [TS.23.503-3GPP] is also helpful to find the role
of user plane in the architecture that influences user plane
protocol. Extracted architectural requirements are described in
Section 4.
Based on the results of above, we identify some aspects where there
might be gap between the current user plane protocol and the
architectural requirements on which [TR.29.891-3GPP] does not
discuss. That aspects are discussed Section 5. That's what we
intend to be as a part of the reply to 3GPP. CT4 WG in 3GPP can
utilize it as an input to evaluate the candidate protocols for user
plane to the 5G system including the current protocol.
[I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane] will provide the
candidate protocols on IETF side to the 3GPP study.
2. Terms and Abbreviations
This section describes terms of functions and interfaces relevant to
user plane protocol which we extract from the 3GPP specifications
since this document focuses on user plane.
In those specifications, there are so many unique terms and
abbreviations in the 3GPP context which IETF community seems not
familiar with. We will try to bring those terms with brief
explanations to make sure common understanding for them.
GTP: GPRS Tunneling Protocol
GTP-U: User Plane part of GTP
Noted that GTP version 1 (GTPv1-U) is the user-plane protocol
specification which is defined in [TS.29.281-3GPP]. Unless there
is no specific annotation, we refer GTP-U to GTPv1-U in this
document.
PDU: Protocol Data Unit of end-to-end user protocol packet.
Noted that the PDU in 3GPP includes IP header in case that PDU
session type is IPv4 or IPv6. In contrast, in IETF it is supposed
that PDU is the payload of IP packet so that it doesn't include
IP/TCP/UDP header in end-to-end.
T-PDU: Transport PDU.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
G-PDU: GTP encapsulated user Plane Data Unit.
GTP-U has above two notions on PDU. T-PDU is a PDU that GTP-U
header encapsulates. G-PDU is a PDU that includes GTP-U header.
A G-PDU may include a T-PDU. G-PDU can be sent without T-PDU, but
just with extension headers or TLV elements. It can be used for
OAM related operations.
PDU session: Association between the UE and a Data Network that
provides a PDU connectivity service.
Data Network (DN): The network of operator services, Internet access
or 3rd party services.
User Plane (UP): Encapsulating user end-to-end PDU.
In fact, we can't find exact text that defines UP in the
architecture specification. However when we see the figure
8.3.1-1 in [TS.23.501-3GPP], we specify UP as the layer right
under PDU that directly encapsulates PDU. Underneath layers of UP
are UP transport, such as IP/UDP, L2 and L1.
However 3GPP is consistent to use the term user plane when they
indicate that layer. In IETF, we can see the terms data plane, or
forwarding plane as variations which often makes us tend to be
confused in terminology.
QFI: QoS Flow Identifier
UPF: User Plane Function
SMF: Session Management Function
SMF is a control plane function which provides session management
service that handling PDU sessions in the control plane. SMF
allocates tunnels corresponding to the PDU sessions and configure
the tunnel to the UPF.
RAN: Radio Access Network
Noted that UP protocol provides a RAN to connect UPF. But the UP
protocol is not appeared on the air in the RAN.
3. GTP-U Specification and Observation
In this section we analyze the GTP-U specification and summarize
clarified characteristic of GTP-U to see if GTP-U meets the
requirements of 5G architecture for user plane in later section.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
3.1. GTP-U Tunnel
GTP-U is a tunneling protocol between given a pair of GTP-U tunnel
endpoint nodes and encapsulates T-PDU from/to UE on top of IP/UDP. A
Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID) value allocated on each end point
indicates which tunnel a particular T-PDU belongs to.
The receiving endpoint individually allocate a TEID and the sender
tunnel endpoint node encapsulates the IP packet from/to UE with the
TEID which is present in GTP-U header on top of IPv4 or IPv6, and
UDP. That is described in section 4.2.1 of [TS.29.281-3GPP].
[GTP-U-1]: GTP-U is an unidirectional Point-to-Point tunneling
protocol.
Figure 1 shows an example of GTP-U protocol stack for uplink (UL) and
downlink (DL) traffic flow. Two GTP-U tunnels are required to form
one bi-directional tunnel.
UL: From RAN to UPF1 (TEID=1), and from UPF1 to UPF2 (TEID=2)
DL: From UPF2 to UPF1 (TEID=3), and from UPF1 to RAN (TEID=4)
In 5GS, GTP-U tunnel is established at following interfaces to
provide PDU Session between UE and 5GC.
N3: Between RAN and UPF
N9: Between different UPFs
GTP-U allows one tunnel endpoint node to send out a G-PDU to be
received by multiple tunnel endpoints by utilizing IP multicast
capability of underlay IP networks. That is described in section
4.2.6 of [TS.29.281-3GPP]. It looks GTP-U has Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) tunneling capability. The P2MP tunneling is used for MBMS
(Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service) through GTP-U tunnel.
[GTP-U-2]: GTP-U supports Point-to-Multipoint tunneling.
UDP is utilized for GTP-U encapsulation and UDP destination port is
2152 which is assigned by IANA. Allocation of UDP source port
depends on sender tunnel endpoint node and GTP-U supports dynamic
allocation of UDP source port for load balancing objective. The
specification of this dynamic allocation is described in section
4.4.2.0 of [TS.29.281-3GPP], however specific procedure, e.g.,
5-tuple hashing, is not described in the document and depends on the
implementation of GTP-U tunnel endpoint node.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[GTP-U-3]: GTP-U supports load balancing by using dynamic UDP source
port allocation.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[Uplink]
.- .-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
| | |Payload | |Payload | |Payload |
| PDU < +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|(3GPP)| |Inner IP| |Inner IP| |Inner IP|
| '-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
| | GTP-U | | GTP-U | | L2 |
| |(TEID=1)| |(TEID=2)| +--------+
GTP< +--------+ +--------+ | L1 |
Pkt | | UDP | | UDP | +--------+
| +--------+ +--------+
| |Outer IP| |Outer IP|
| +--------+ +--------+
| | L2 | | L2 |
| +--------+ +--------+
| | L1 | | L1 |
'- +--------+ - - - - +--------+
================ Traffic Direction =======================>
[Downlink]
.- .-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
| | |Payload | |Payload | |Payload |
| PDU < +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
|(3GPP)| |Inner IP| |Inner IP| |Inner IP|
| '-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
| | GTP-U | | GTP-U | | L2 |
| |(TEID=4)| |(TEID=3)| +--------+
GTP< +--------+ +--------+ | L1 |
Pkt | | UDP | | UDP | +--------+
| +--------+ +--------+
| |Outer IP| |Outer IP|
| +--------+ +--------+
| | L2 | | L2 |
| +--------+ +--------+
| | L1 | | L1 |
'- +--------+ - - - - +--------+
<=============== Traffic Direction ========================
+-----+ N3 +------+ N9 +------+ N6
-----+ RAN +-----------+ UPF1 +------------+ UPF2 +----------
+-----+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1: Protocol Stack by GTPv1-U for Uplink and Downlink Traffic
Flow
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
IPv6 flow label [RFC6437] is also candidate method for load balancing
especially for IP-in-IPv6 tunnel [RFC6438] like GTP-U. However, how
to use IPv6 flow label of GTP-U is not described in [TS.29.281-3GPP].
Though this method is limited to a case of IPv6 encapsulated GTP-U
tunnel, it is worth to study usage of IPv6 flow label in 3GPP.
[GTP-U-4]: GTP-U does not support IPv6 flow label for load balancing
in case of IPv6 transport.
GTP-U supports both IPv4 and IPv6 as underlying transport layer
protocol. As for IPv6, GTP-U specification refers [RFC2460], which
is described in section 4.2.3 of [TS.29.281-3GPP]. As [RFC2460] does
not allow the tunnel protocols on top of UDP to set the checksum
value to zero, the GTP-U specification inherits it while the IPv4
transport for GTP-U case allows UDP zero checksum. It is noted that
the IPv6 specification in IETF has been updated to [RFC8200] which
allows UDP zero checksum for the tunnel. [RFC6935] describes
benefits of zero checksum for tunnel protocol over UDP. If GTP-U
support UFP zero checksum in future version, possible
interoperability issue between previous generations which does not
support zero checksum may raise.
[GTP-U-5]: UDP zero checksum is not available in case of IPv6
transport.
"Unnecessary fragmentation should be avoided" is recommended and to
avoid the fragmentation operator should configure MTU size at UE
[TS.29.281-3GPP]. However, there's no reference and specification of
Path MTU Discovery for IPv6 transport. If encapsulated IPv6 packet
is too big on a network link between tunnel endpoint nodes, UE may
not receive ICMPv6 Packet Too Big message and causes Path MTU
Discovery black hole.
[GTP-U-6]: GTP-U does not support to response ICMP PTB for Path MTU
Discovery.
Section 9.3 of [TS.23.060-3GPP] specifies advertisement of inner IPv6
link MTU size for UE by IPv6 RA message [RFC4861]. However, this
document doesn't specify a procedure to measure MTU size in mobile
network system and mobile network operator need to calculate MTU size
for UE like Annex C of [TS.23.060-3GPP]. If link MTU of a router in
a transport network is accidentally modified, UE cannot detect the
event and send packet with initial MTU size, which may cause service
disruption due to MTU exceed in the router link.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
3.2. GTP-U Header Format
Figure 2 shows general and mandatory GTP-U header and Figure 3 shows
extension GTP-U header.
[GTP-U-7]: GTP-U supports sequence number option in the header, but
it is not recommended to be used by almost GTP-U
entities.
GTP-U header has Sequence Number field to reorder incoming packets
based on the sequence number. If Sequence Number Flag is set to '1'
it indicates that Sequence Number Filed exists in GTP-U header and
examined at receiving tunnel endpoint node to reorder incoming
packets. However, the sequence number flag is set to '1' only for
RAT HO procedure and sequence number flag should be set to '0' in
normal case. Therefore, in normal case receiver tunnel endpoint node
doesn't examine sequence number and can't reorder GTP-U packets based
on the sequence number. This specification is described in section
5.1 of [TS.29.281-3GPP]. In 3GPP, sequential delivery is required
only during handover procedure and is used by only RAN entities.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ver |P|R|E|S|N| Message Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Endpoint Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number | N-PDU Number | Next-Ext-Hdr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: GTP-U Header
o Ver: Version field (Set to '1')
o P: Protocol Type (Set to '1')
o R: Reserved bit (Set to '0')
o E: Extension Header Flag (Set to '1' if extension header exists)
o S: Sequence Number Flag (Set to '1' if sequence number exists)
o N: N-PDU Number Flag (Set to '1' if N-PDU number exists)
o Message Type: Indicates the type of GTP-U message
o Length: Indicates the length in octets of the payload
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
o Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID)
o Sequence Number: Indicates increasing sequence number for T-PDUs
is transmitted via GTP-U tunnels
o N-PDU Number: It is used only for inter SGSN, 2G-3G handover case,
etc.
o Next-Ext-Hdr: Indicates following extension header type
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ext-Hdr Length| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Extension Header Content |
. .
. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Next-Ext-Hdr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Extension GTP-U Header
o Ext-Hdr Length: Represents the length of the Extension header in
units of 4 octets
o Extension Header Content: Contains 3GPP related information
o Next-Ext-Hdr: Indicates following extension header type
The extension GTP-U header is a variable-length and extendable header
and contains 3GPP specific information. Following list summarizes
every extension header which is used for user plane protocol. These
extension headers are defined in [TS.29.281-3GPP]. In this list
Next-Ext-Hdr is represented in binary.
o No more extension headers (Next-Ext-Hdr = 00000000)
o Service Class Indicator (Next-Ext-Hdr = 00100000)
o UDP Port (Next-Ext-Hdr = 01000000)
o RAN Container (Next-Ext-Hdr = 10000001)
o Long PDCP PDU Number (Next-Ext-Hdr = 10000010)
o Xw RAN Container (Next-Ext-Hdr = 10000011)
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
o NR RAN Container (Next-Ext-Hdr = 10000100)
o PDU Session Container (Next-Ext-Hdr = 10000101)
o PDCP PDU Number (Next-Ext-Hdr = 11000000)
[GTP-U-8]: GTP-U supports carrying QoS Identifiers transparently for
Access Networks in an extension header.
GTP-U is designed to carry 3GPP specific information with extension
headers. 3GPP creates PDU Session Container extension header for
NGRAN of 5G to carry QFI. It is described in section 5.2.2.7 of
[TS.29.281-3GPP].
[GTP-U-9]: GTP-U supports DSCP marking based on the QFI.
DSCP marking on outer IPv4 or IPv6 shall be set by sender tunnel
endpoint node based on the QFI. This specification is described in
section 4.4.1 of [TS.29.281-3GPP].
[GTP-U-10]: GTP-U does not specify extension header order.
In general, multiple GTP-U extension headers are able to contained in
one GTP-U packet and the order of those extension headers is not
specified by [TS.29.281-3GPP]. Thereby the receiving endpoint can't
predict exact position where the target extension headers are. This
could impact on header lookup performance on the node.
As for PDU Session Container extension header, there is a note in
[TS.29.281-3GPP] as "For a G-PDU with several Extension Headers, the
PDU Session Container should be the first Extension Header". This
note was added at the version 15.3.0 of [TS.29.281-3GPP] which is
published on June 2018 in order to accelerate the processing of GTP-U
packet at UPF and RAN. It is only one rule regarding the extension
header order.
[GTP-U-11]: GTP-U does not support to indicate next protocol type.
When Next-Ext-Hdr is set to 0x00 it indicates that no more extension
headers follow. As GTP is designed to indicate protocol types for
T-PDU by control-plane signaling, GTP-U doesn't have Next-Protocol-
Header field to indicate the T-PDU type in the header.
3.3. Control Plane Protocol for GTP-U
Control plane protocol for GTP-U signals TEID between tunnel endpoint
nodes. GTPv2-C [TS.29.274-3GPP] is the original control plane
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
protocol tied with GTP-U in previous generation architectures before
CUPS (Control and User Plane Separation).
3GPP decided to use extended PFCP (Packet Forwarding Control
Protocol) [TS.29.244-3GPP] for N4 interface [TR.29.891-3GPP] to
signal tunnel states from SMF to UPF.
3.4. GTP-U message
GTP-U supports in-band messaging to signal OAM. Currently GTP-U
supports following messages [TS.29.281-3GPP].
o Echo Request
o Echo Response
o Supported Extension Headers Notification
o Error Indication
o End Marker
[GTP-U-12]: GTP-U supports active OAM as a path management message
"Echo Request/Response".
A GTP-U tunnel endpoint node sends a Echo Request message to another
nodes for keep-alive and received node sends a Echo Response message
to sender node as acknowledgment. Echo Request message and Echo
Response message are described in section 7.2.1 and section 7.2.2 of
[TS.29.281-3GPP] respectively. [TR.29.891-3GPP] recommends not to
send Echo Request message more often than 60s on each path.
Supported Extension Headers Notification message indicates a list of
supported that tunnel endpoint node can support. This message is
sent only in case a tunnel endpoint node receives GTP-U packet with
unsupported extension header.
[GTP-U-13]: GTP-U supports tunnel management messages "Error
Indication".
GTP-U has Error Indication message to notify that the receiving
endpoint discard packets of which no session exist to the sending
endpoint. Error Indication message is described in section 7.3.1 of
[TS.29.281-3GPP].
[GTP-U-14]: GTP-U supports tunnel management messages "End Marker".
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
GTP-U has End Marker message to indicate the end of the payload
stream that needs to be sent on a GTP-U tunnel. End Marker message
is described in section 7.3.2 of [TS.29.281-3GPP].
3.5. Packet Format
Figure 4 shows a packet format example of GTP-U over IPv6 that
carries an extension header for QFI and an IPv6 PDU. All values in
the example are illustration purpose only. The encoding of PDU
Session Container for QFI refers to [TS.38.415-3GPP].
Outer IPv6 Header's DSCP value(EF) in Figure 4 is marked at sender
tunnel endpoint node based on QFI value which is contained in GTP-U
Extension Header (PDU Session Container).
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Outer IPv6 Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| DSCP=EF | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | NxtHdr=17(UDP)| Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source IPv6 Address +
| 2001:db8:1:1::1 |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination IPv6 Address +
| 2001:db8:1:2::1 |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer UDP Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 2152 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum (Non-zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
GTP-U header
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x1 |1|0|1|0|0| 0xff | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TEID = 1654 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number = 0 |N-PDU Number=0 |NextExtHdr=0x85|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
GTP-U Extension Header (PDU Session Container)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ExtHdrLen=2 |Type=0 | Spare |0|0| QFI | PPI | Spare |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Padding |NextExtHdr=0x0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inner IPv6 Header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| DSCP=0 | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | NexttHdr | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source IPv6 Address +
| 2001:db8:2:1::1 |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination IPv6 Address +
| 2001:db8:3:1::1 |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
. TCP/UDP/etc., Data .
. .
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
Figure 4: GTP-U Protocol Stack Example
3.6. Observations Summary
[GTP-U-1]: An unidirectional Point-to-Point tunneling protocol.
[GTP-U-2]: Supports Point-to-Multipoint tunneling.
[GTP-U-3]: Supports load balancing by using dynamic UDP port
allocation.
[GTP-U-4]: Does not support IPv6 flow label for load balancing in
case of IPv6 transport.
[GTP-U-5]: UDP zero checksum is not available in case of IPv6
transport.
[GTP-U-6]: Does not support to response ICMP PTB for Path MTU
Discovery.
[GTP-U-7]: Supports sequence number option and sequence number flag
in the header, but it is not recommended to be used by
almost GTP-U entities.
[GTP-U-8]: Supports carrying QoS Identifiers transparently for
Access Networks in extension headers.
[GTP-U-9]: Supports DSCP marking based on the QFI.
[GTP-U-10]: Does not specify the rule for the extension header order.
[GTP-U-11]: Does not support an indication of next-header type.
[GTP-U-12]: Supports active OAM as a path management message "Echo
Request/Response".
[GTP-U-13]: Supports tunnel management messages "Error Indication".
[GTP-U-14]: Supports tunnel management messages "End Marker".
4. 5GS Architectural Requirements for User Plane Protocols
4.1. Overview of 5G System Architecture
The 5G system is designed for applying to diverse devices and
services due to factors such as the diffusion of IoT devices, and the
UP protocol is required to have capabilities for satisfying their
requirements.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
As a principle of the 5G system, User Plane (UP) functions are
separated from the Control Plane (CP) functions for allowing
independent scalability, evolution and flexible deployments.
Network slicing is also one of the fundamental concepts of the 5G
system, and it provides logical network separation. In terms of user
plane, multiple network slices can be comprised of UPFs on top of
same physical network resources. Allocated resources and structures
may be differentiated among the slices by which the required features
or capabilities.
The architecture overview is shown in Figure 5. The details of
functions are described in [TS.23.501-3GPP]. User plane path and
applied functions for a tunnel will be manipulated based on
application requirements that the PDU session corresponding to the
tunnel. These tunnels are available to be handled by other
authorized functions through the control plane.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|NSSF | | NEF | | NRF | | PCF | | UDM | | AF |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
Nnssf| Nnef| Nnrf| Npcf| Nudm| |Naf
---+--------+--+-----+--+--------+--+-----+--------+-
Nausf| Namf| Nsmf|
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+-------+
|AUSR | | AMF | | SMF |
+-----+ ++-+--+ +--+-----+-+
/ | | \
Control Plane N1/ |N2 |N4 \N4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User Plane / | | \
+--++ +--+--+ N3 +--+--+ N9 +-+---+ N6 +-----+
|UE +--+(R)AN+-----+ UPF +-----+ UPF +----+ DN |
+---+ +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+
|N6
+--+--+
| DN |
+-----+
Figure 5: 5GS Architecture and Service-based Interfaces
This document mainly focuses on requirements for N9 interface as
relevant to UP protocol of 5G system.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
4.1.1. UPF Functionalities
UPF has a role to handle UP traffic, and provides functionalities to
look up user data traffic and enforce the appropriate policies to it.
The followings are defined as UPF functionalities for traffic
handling:
o User Plane part of policy rule enforcement, e.g. Gating,
Redirection, Traffic steering)
o QoS handling for user plane, e.g. UL/DL rate enforcement,
Reflective QoS marking in DL
o Transport level packet marking in the uplink and downlink
Other functionalities are described in the section 6.2.3 of
[TS.23.501-3GPP]
UPF shall detect user plane traffic flow depending on information
indicated by SMF. User data traffic is detected with combination of
the following information:
o For IPv4 or IPv6 PDU Session type
* PDU Session
* QFI
* Application Identifier: The Application ID is an index to a set
of application detection rules configured in UPF
o For Ethernet PDU Session type
* PDU Session
* QFI
* Ethernet Packet Filter Set:
+ Source/destination MAC address
+ Ethertype as defined in IEEE 802.3
+ Customer-VLAN tag(C-TAG) and/or Service-VLAN tag(S-TAG) VID
fields as defined in IEEE 802.1Q
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
+ Customer-VLAN tag(C-TAG) and/or Service-VLAN tag(S-TAG) PCP/
DEI fields as defined in IEEE 802.1Q
+ IP Packet Filter Set, in case Ethertype indicates IPv4/IPv6
payload
+ Packet filter direction
Such information for traffic detection (Traffic Detection
Information) is described in the section 5.8.2.4 of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
4.2. Architectural Requirements for User Plane Protocols
This section lists the requirements for the UP protocol on the 5G
system. The requirements are picked up from [TS.23.501-3GPP]. In
addition, some of service requirements described in [TS.22.261-3GPP]
are referred to clarify the originations of architectural
requirements.
According to [TS.23.501-3GPP], the specifications potentially have
assumptions that the UP protocol is a tunnel representing a single
TEID between a pair of UPFs and it is corresponding to a single PDU
session. In short, the UP protocol is a tunnel and it is assumed to
be managed under per PDU session handling. Also, it should be a
stateful tunnel in the UPFs along with the PDU session.
The requirements for UP protocols are described below:
ARCH-Req-1: Supporting IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet and Unstructured PDU
The 5G system defines four types of PDU session as IPv4, IPv6,
Ethernet, and Unstructured. Therefore, UP protocol must support to
convey all of these PDU session types. This is described in
[TS.23.501-3GPP].
Note: In TS 23.501 v15.2.0, IPv4v6 is added as a PDU session type.
ARCH-Req-2: Supporting IP connectivity for N3, N6, and N9 interfaces
The 5G system requires IP connectivity for N3, N6, and N9 interfaces.
The IP connectivity is assumed that it comprises of IP routing and
L1/L2 transport networks which are outside of 3GPP specifications.
It is desirable that the IP connectivity built on IPv6 networks when
it comes to address space for end-to-end user plane coverage. But it
is expected to take certain time. During the IPv6 networks are not
deployed for all the coverage, UP protocol should support RANs and
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
DNs running on IPv4 transport connect to UPF running on IPv6
transport.
Furthermore, on N6 interface, point-to-point tunneling based on UDP/
IPv6 may be used to deliver unstructured PDU type data. Then, the
content information of the PDU may be mapped into UDP port number,
and the UDP port numbers is pre-configured in the UPF and DN. This
is described in the section 9.2 of [TS.29.561-3GPP].
ARCH-Req-3: Supporting deployment of multiple UPFs as anchors for a
single PDU session
The 5G system allows to deploy multiple UPFs as anchors for a single
PDU session, and supports multihoming of a single PDU session for
such anchor UPFs.
Multihoming is provided with Branching Point (BP) or Uplink
Classifier (UL CL) which are functionalities of UPF. BP provides
forwarding of UL traffic towards the different PDU Session Anchors
based on the source IPv6 prefixes and merge of DL traffic to the UE.
UL CL provides destination based multihoming for load balancing.
On UL side, multihoming of a single PDU session is achieved by a
point-to-point (P2P) tunnel per anchor UPF. It means that multiple
P2P paths are established from one source gNB or UPF to the multiple
destination anchor UPFs for the PDU session.
On DL side, one single multipoint-to-point (MP2P) path exists from
the anchor UPFs to the source gNB or UPF for the PDU session in this
multihoming case. It means that the paths from the anchor UPFs are
merged into just one tunnel state at the source gNB or UPF for the
PDU session.
Multiple P2P paths on DL could also be used for multihoming. However
it should be the multiple PDU sessions multihoming case where the
destination gNB or UPF needs to maintain multiple tunnel states under
the one PDU session to one UP tunnel architectural principle.
However, P2P tunneling could increase explosively the number of
states in UPF as the anchor UPF/DN incremented to the PDU session.
Thereby single PDU session multihoming with MP2P path should be a
better option for multihoming in terms of reducing total number of
tunnel states.
SSC mode 3 for session continuity in hand-over case uses a single PDU
multihoming with BP to make sure make-before-break. It is described
in the section 5.6.4 and 5.6.9 of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
Multihoming is also assumed to be used for edge computing scenario.
Edge computing enables some services to be hosted close to the UE's
access point of attachment, and achieves an efficient service
delivery through the reduced end-to-end latency and load on the
transport network. In edge computing, local user's traffic is routed
or steered to application in the local DN by UPF. This refers the
section 5.13 of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
ARCH-Req-4: Supporting flexible UPF selection for PDU
The appropriate UPFs are selected for a PDU session based on
parameters and information such as UPF's dynamic load or UE location
information. Examples of parameters and information are described in
the section 6.3.3 of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
This means that its possible to make routing on user plane more
efficient in the 5GS. For example, in case that UPFs are distributed
geographically, decision of the destination UPF based on locations of
end hosts (e.g., UE or NF in DN) enables to forward PDUs with a route
connecting between UPFs nearby the hosts directly.
The 5GS allows operators to select parameters used for UPF selection.
(In other words, any specific schems on UPF selection are not defined
in the current 3GPP documents.)
ARCH-Req-5: No limitation for number of UPFs in a data path
The number of UPF in the data path is not constrained by 3GPP
specifications. This specification is described in the section 8.3.1
of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
Putting multiple UPFs, which provides specific function, in a data
path enables flexible function deployment to make sure load
distribution optimizations, etc.
In addition, deployment of multiple UPFs as anchors closed to UEs'
site and connecting them without extra anchor points enable to make
data path more efficient. This usage is described in the section 6.5
of [TS.22.261-3GPP].
Meanwhile, each UPF in a data path shall be controlled by an SMF via
N4 interface. Thus putting an excess of UPF for data paths might
cause increase of load of an SMF. Pragmatically, the number of UPF
put in a data path is one or two (e.g., for MEC or roaming cases),
and, at most, it would be three (e.g., for case where UE moves during
a session).
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
It is expected that multiple UPFs with per session tunnel handling
for a PDU session becomes complicated task more and more for a SMF by
increasing number of UPFs, and UP protocol shall support to aggregate
several PDU sessions into a tunnel or shall be a session-less tunnel.
ARCH-Req-6: Supporting aggregation of multiple QoS Flow indicated
with QFI into a PDU Session
Against to the previous generation, 5G enables UPF to multiplex QoS
Flows, equivalent with IP-CAN bearers in the previous generation,
into one single PDU session. That means that a single tunnel
includes multiple QFIs contrast to just one QoS Flow (a bearer) to
one tunnel before 5G.
In even the 5GS, each flow is forwarded based on the appropriate QoS
rules. QoS rules are configured by SMF as QoS profiles to UP
compoents and these components perform QoS controls to PDUs based on
rules. In downlink, a UPF pushes QFI into an extension header, and
transmits the PDU to RAN or another UPF. Then, such UPF may perform
transport level QoS packet marking (e.g., DSCP marking in the outer
header). In uplink, each UE obtains the QoS rule from SMF, and
transmit PDUs with QFI containing the QoS rules to the RAN. The
following RAN and UPFs perform enforcement of QoS control and
charging based on the QFI.
This specification is described in 5.7.1 of [TS.23.501-3GPP].
ARCH-Req-7: Supporting network slicing
The 5GS fundamentally supports network slicing for provision the
appropriate end-to-end communication to various services. In the
relevant documents (e.g., [TS.23.501-3GPP], [TS.28.531-3GPP]), a
network slice is defined as virtual network and it is structured with
SMF, RANs, UPFs and DNs. Each network slice is independent and its
user plane (including network functions and links) should be
noninteractive against the others.
Note that 3GPP focuses on only mobility management and specifications
to synchronize with other networks including transport networks is
not clearly defined.
5. Evaluation Aspects
This section provides UP protocol evaluation aspects that are mainly
we derived from the architectural requirements described in
Section 4. Those aspects are not prioritized by the order here.
Expected deployment scenarios explain the evaluations purpose in the
corresponding aspects.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
As we were noticed that the gaps between GTP-U specifications and 5G
architectural requirements through the analysis, those each gap are
briefly described in the evaluation aspect associated to it.
Since it is obvious that 5G system should be able to interwork with
existing previous generation based systems, any aspects from
coexisting and interworking point of view are not particularly
articulated here. It may be described in a next version.
5.1. Supporting PDU Session Type Variations
Given that UP protocol is required to support all PDU session types:
IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet, and Unstructured. However, it is expected that
some deployment cases allow candidate protocol to adopt only one or
few PDU session type(s) for simplicity of operations. As we can
expect that IPv4 connectivity services will be available through
IPv6-only PDU session that enabled by bunch of IPv6 transition
solutions already available in the field.
For this, the expected evaluation points from this aspect should be
whether there is substitutional means to cover other PDU session
types. And how much it makes simple the system than deploying
original PDU session types.
5.2. Nature of Data Path
As it is described in Section 4.2, the single PDU session multi-
homing case requires multipoint-to-point (MP2P) data path. It should
be much scalable than multi-homing with multiple PDU sessions because
number of required path states in the UPFs are reduced as closed to
egress endpoint. Against that point-to-point (P2P) protocol requires
same number of states in each UPF throughout the path.
From this point of view, the expected evaluation points from this
aspect is whether the nature of candidate UP protocols are to utilize
MP2P data path. Supporting MP2P data path by GTP-U could be a gap
since GTP-U is a point-to-point tunneling protocol as it is described
in Section 3.
Noted that 3GPP CT WG4 pointed out GTP-U was already required to
allow one single tunnel endpoint to receive packets from multiple
source endpoints ([C4-185491-3GPP]). It was an architectural
requirement of 3GPP system from a previous generation. It means that
MP2P data path requirement for UP protocol has been existed before
the 5G system.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
5.3. Supporting Transport Variations
The 5G system will be expected that the new radio spectrums in high
frequency bands require operators to deploy their base stations much
dense for much wider areas compare to previous generation footprints.
To make sure that density and coverage, all available types of
transport in the field must be employed between RAN to UPF, or UPF to
UPF.
It is also expected that MTU size of each transport could be varied.
Because one could be own fiber which the operator configure the MTU
size as they like while others are third-party provided L2/L3 VPN
lines which MTU size can't be controlled by the operators.
The MTU between RAN and UPF can be discovered by offline means and
the operator takes into account the MTU that is transferable on the
radio interface and based on this the operator configures the right
MTU to be used. That is then signaled to the UE either via PCO (for
IPv4 case) or the IPv6 RA message (for IPv6 case).
In addition, for cases that third-parties provide VPN lines, it would
be recommended MTU size discovery for each data path and dynamic MTU
size adjustment mechanisms, while GTP-U does not support those
mechanisms.
As the study item in 3GPP mentioned, IPv6 is preferable address
family not only for UEs, but also for the UP transport, in terms of
size of available address space to support dense and wide footprint
of base stations. However it increases header size from 20bytes to
40bytes compare to IPv4. It could be a problem if the MTU size is
uncontrollable, or only limited MTU size available to carry committed
PDU size on the user plane.
The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be that the
candidate protocols are able to dynamically adjust path MTU size with
appropriate MTU size discovery mechanism. It also should be that how
the candidate protocols leverage IPv6 to deal with header size
increasing.
5.4. Data Path Management
As Section 4.2 described, the 5G systems allows user plane that
flexible UPF selection, multiple anchor UPFs, and no limit on how
many UPFs chained for the data path of the PDU session. UPF
deployments in the field will thereby be distributed to be able to
optimize the data path based on various logics and service scenarios.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
That powerful user plane capability could affect data path management
complicated and difficult to be managed through the control plane, or
operation support systems (OSS). Perhaps it could be the case where
the UP protocol nature is P2P and it only supports per session base
data path handling.
Because it increases data path states by number of sessions, and
number of endpoints of UPFs that makes data path handling much hectic
and the control plane tend to be overloaded by not only usual
attach/detach/hand-over operations, but also existing session
manipulation triggered by UPF and transport nodes/paths restoration,
etc.,
The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be that how
much the candidate protocols can reduce data path management loads
both on the control plane NFs and UPFs compare to the per session
based handling for P2P paths. It could possibly include N3 and N6 in
addition to N9 while it supports flexible user plane data path
optimizations for some example scenarios.
5.5. QoS Control
The QoS model is based on QoS flows to which QFI indicates in the 5G
system that allows multiple QoS flows are aggregated into a single
PDU session. So that it is given that the UP protocol should convey
QFIs for a PDU session and the UPF needs to lookup them. It makes
sure that reflects QoS policy in the 5G system to corresponding
forwarding policy in the user plane IP transports.
The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be whether the
candidate protocols can provide stable ID space for QFI which
shouldn't be a big deal since QFI just requires 6-bits space.
As we pointed out in Section 3.2, the lookup process could impact UPF
performance if the QFI container position in the header is
unpredictable. It could happen many times along the path because the
each UPFs should do it again and again in case that various different
QoS policies are deployed in the networks under the UP as we
discussed in Section 5.3.
As [TS.29.281-3GPP] updated in version 15.3.0, it is recommended that
the first extension header is the PDU session container in which QFI
is present.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
5.6. Traffic Detection and Flow Handling
As described in Section 4.1.1, UPF need to detect traffic flow
specified by SMF within a PDU session, and enforce some processes to
the PDU based on the pre-configured policy rule.
As similar with QoS flow lookup described in Section 5.5, UPFs along
the path are repeatedly detecting an specified traffic flow in inner
PDU. It could increase redundant flow detection load on every UPFs
that could be avoided if the upstream UPF put some identifier which
abstracts the detected flow into the packets. It enables following
UPFs just find the ID to detect the indicated flow from the packet.
The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be whether the
candidate protocols can provide means to reduce that redundant flow
detection that could be enough bits space on stable ID space to put
abstracted detected flow identifier.
5.7. Supporting Network Slicing Diversity
To embody network slicing, it is expected that various means should
be available in case by case, or operator by operator, for their 5G
systems while it follows the fundamental slicing concept, as
described in Section 4.1.
As [TS.28.530-3GPP] described in section 4, UP underlay transport
networks and UPFs are shared by network slices. The data model
defined in [TS.29.510-3GPP] allows that a Network Instance, a UPF and
its interfaces can belong to multiple slices as same as other type of
NFs. UP endpoint IP prefix/address of an interface can also be
shared with multiple interfaces on the UPF as the model doesn't make
them slice unique.
The assumed slice operation in 5G architecture is that UPFs connect
to each other through direct (virtual) link as Section 4.1 describes
that UPFs compose a network slice on an UP. So IP routing and
transport system underneath the UP are not visible from the 5G
system. However some means need to indicate a slice on the shared
underlying networks of the UP over the wire.
That's just one way for network slicing, but it would help to reduce
the operational burden. Even it depends on each operator's policy,
sharing network instances, UPFs, and the interfaces among slices
makes operators relax and not to be much hustled on slice lifecycle
management., such as create, update, and delete operations for
slices.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
By the way, the 3GPP specifications for slice lifecycle managements
is described in the relevant documents: [TS.28.531-3GPP],
[TS.28.532-3GPP], and [TS.28.533-3GPP].
It could also make sense in case that each network slice requires
different forwarding policies in the middle of the path. Some
identifier in the packets for a slice could be a glue between UP path
and its underlying transport networks. For example, if a slice
requires certain level of latency with dedicated route, traffic
engineering (TE) embodies appropriate forwarding policy through the
underlay transport network.
The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be whether the
candidate protocols can support to indicate a network slice in the UP
packets that could be enough bits space on stable ID space to put
slice identifier for the slice, or the forwarding policy within the
slice. Since 5G control plane is not designed to handle transport
resources, such as VLAN, MPLS Label, Tunnel ID except GTP-U, less
impact to the control plane protocol and the APIs should be much
preferable.
6. Conclusion
We analyzed the 3GPP specifications of the 5G architecture in terms
of user plane and the current protocol adopted to the user plane.
After the analysis work, we believe that the results described in
this document shows that we reach at certain level of understanding
on the 5G systems and ready to provide our inputs to 3GPP.
We clarified GTP-U through the analysis and listed observed
characteristics in Section 3.6. We also clarified the architectural
requirements for UP protocol described in Section 4.2.
As we identified some potential gaps between the current UP protocol
and the architectural requirements even for Release 15, it is worth
to study possible candidate UP protocols for the 5G system including
current one. Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol
study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects
described in Section 5.
7. Security Consideration
TBD
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
8. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Takashi Ito, John Leddy,
Pablo Camarillo, Daisuke Yokota, Satoshi Watanabe, Koji Tsubouchi and
Miya Kohno for their detailed reviews, comments, and contributions.
A special thank you goes to Arashmid Akhavain for his technical
review and feedback.
Lastly, the authors would like to thank 3GPP CT WG4 folks for their
review and feedback.
9. Informative References
[C4-185491-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "LS OUT on User
Plane Analysis", July 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/WG4_protocollars_ex-
CN4/TSGCT4_85bis_Sophia_Antipolis/Docs/C4-185491.zip>.
[CP-173160-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "New Study Item
on User Plane Protocol in 5GC", December 2017,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/TSG_CT/TSGC_78_Lisbon/
Docs/CP-173160.zip>.
[CP-180116-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "LS on user
plane protocol study", March 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ct/TSG_CT/TSGC_79_Chennai/
Docs/CP-180116.zip>.
[I-D.bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane]
Bogineni, K., Akhavain, A., Herbert, T., Farinacci, D.,
Rodriguez-Natal, A., Carofiglio, G., Auge, J.,
Muscariello, L., Camarillo, P., and S. Homma, "Optimized
Mobile User Plane Solutions for 5G", draft-bogineni-dmm-
optimized-mobile-user-plane-01 (work in progress), June
2018.
[IAB-Statement]
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), "IAB Statement on
IPv6", November 2016,
<https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[TR.29.891-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TR 29.891
(V15.0.0): 5G System Phase 1, CT WG4 Aspects", December
2017, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2017-12/
Rel-15/29_series/29891-f00.zip>.
[TS.22.261-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 22.261
(V15.4.0): Service requirements for 5G system stage 1",
March 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
Rel-15/22_series/22261-f40.zip>.
[TS.23.060-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.060
(V15.3.0): General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
description; Stage 2", June 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/23_series/23.060/23060-f30.zip>.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[TS.23.501-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.501
(V15.3.0): System Architecture for 5G System; Stage 2",
September 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/23_series/23.501/23501-f30.zip>.
[TS.23.502-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.502
(V15.1.0): Procedures for 5G System; Stage 2", March 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
Rel-15/23_series/23502-f10.zip>.
[TS.23.503-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.503
(V15.1.0): Policy and Charging Control System for 5G
Framework; Stage 2", March 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/
Specs/2018-03/Rel-15/23_series/23503-f10.zip>.
[TS.28.530-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 28.530
(V1.0.0): Management and orchestration of networks and
network slicing; Concepts, use cases and requirements
(work in progress)", June 2018,
<http://ftp.3gpp.org//Specs/
archive/28_series/28.530/28530-100.zip>.
[TS.28.531-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 28.531
(V1.0.0): Management and orchestration of networks and
network slicing; Provisioning; Stage 1 (Release 15)", June
2018, <http://ftp.3gpp.org//Specs/
archive/28_series/28.531/28531-100.zip>.
[TS.28.532-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 28.532
(V0.3.0): Management and orchestration of networks and
network slicing; Provisioning; Stage 2 and stage 3
(Release 15)", June 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/28_series/28.532/28532-030.zip>.
[TS.28.533-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 28.533
(V0.3.0): Management and orchestration of networks and
network slicing; Management and orchestration architecture
(Release 15)", June 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/28_series/28.533/28533-030.zip>.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[TS.29.244-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 29.244
(V15.1.0): Interface between the Control Plane and the
User Plane Nodes; Stage 3", March 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
Rel-15/29_series/29244-f10.zip>.
[TS.29.274-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 29.274
(V15.4.0): 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved
General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol for
Control plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3", June 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/29_series/29.274/29274-f40.zip>.
[TS.29.281-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 29.281
(V15.4.0): GPRS Tunneling Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)",
September 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/29_series/29.281/29281-f40.zip>.
[TS.29.510-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 29.510
(V15.0.0): 5G System; Network Function Repository
Services; Stage 3", June 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/
Specs/2018-06/Rel-15/29_series/29510-f00.zip>.
[TS.29.561-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 29.561
(V15.0.0): 5G System; Interworking between 5G Network and
external Data Networks; Stage 3", June 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-06/
Rel-15/29_series/29561-f00.zip>.
[TS.38.300-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 38.300
(v15.1.0): NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2",
March 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
Rel-15/38_series/38300-f10.zip>.
[TS.38.401-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 38.401
(v15.1.0): NG-RAN; Architecture Description", March 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
Rel-15/38_series/38401-f10.zip>.
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 October 2018
[TS.38.415-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 38.415
(v15.1.0): NG-RAN; PDU Session User Plane protocol",
September 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/38_series/38.415/38415-f10.zip>.
Authors' Addresses
Shunsuke Homma
NTT
Email: homma.shunsuke@lab.ntt.co.jp
Takuya Miyasaka
KDDI Research
Email: ta-miyasaka@kddi-research.jp
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank
Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Homma, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 32]
