Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-dmm-srv6mob-arch
draft-ietf-dmm-srv6mob-arch
DMM Working Group M. Kohno
Internet-Draft F. Clad
Intended status: Informational P. Camarillo
Expires: 18 August 2024 Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
L. Jalil
Verizon
15 February 2024
Architecture Discussion on SRv6 Mobile User plane
draft-ietf-dmm-srv6mob-arch-00
Abstract
This document discusses the solution approach and its architectural
benefits of translating mobile session information into routing
information, applying segment routing capabilities, and operating in
the IP routing paradigm.
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 18 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
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 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SRv6 mobile user plane and the 5G use cases . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Edge Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. URLLC (Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication)
support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Co-existence and Incremental Deployability . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The current mobile user plane is defined as an overlay tunnel session
to a mobile anchor point (UPF: User Plane Function in 5G context).
While this approach may be well suited for the use cases which
require frequent mobile handover and per-session per-usage charging,
it is difficult to cost-effectively and scalably address the high
traffic volumes of the 5G/Beyond 5G era and more distributed data and
computing demands in future.
The requirements for wireless systems, such as IoT and FWA (Fixed
Wireless Access) applications, are becoming more diverse, and there
are cases where the frequent mobile handover and per-session per-
usage charging is not necessarily mandatory.
This document discusses the solution approach and its architectural
benefits of translating mobile session information into routing
information, applying segment routing capabilities, and operating in
the IP routing paradigm.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
2. Problem Definition
The current tunnel session based mobile user plane has the following
limitations and is getting hard to support new application
requirements.
* Less suited for any-to-any communication
* Less suited for edge/distributed computing
* Less suited for fixed and mobile convergence (FMC) / wireless-
wireline convergence (WWC)
* Limited control of the underlay path
Mobile session information is a function of M,N (GTP-U start point
and end point), whereas routing information is a function of N
(destination). Therefore, for any-to-any communications, session
based paradigm yields O(N^2), whereas IP routing paradigm yields
O(N).
Edge/distributed computing can be seen as a subset of any-to-any
communication. IP Routing paradigm naturally supports ubiquitous
computing.
As for FMC/WWC, there is currently a coordinated standardization
effort between 3GPP WWC [TS.23316] and BBF [BBF407]. However, the
idea is to anchor even wireline traffic in the mobile packet core,
which compromises simplicity and scalability.
In addition, the anchor point that terminates tunnel sessions becomes
a scaling bottleneck.
The IP routing paradigm naturally removes these tunnel session based
restrictions. Segment Routing enables fast protection, policy,
multi-tenancy, and provide reliability and SLA differentiation.
3. SRv6 mobile user plane and the 5G use cases
This section describes the advantages of applying SRv6 mobile user
plane for 5G use cases.
3.1. Network Slicing
Network slicing enables network segmentation, isolation, and SLA
differentiation in terms of latency and availability. End-to-end
slicing will be achieved by mapping and coordinating IP network
slicing, RAN and mobile packet core slicing.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
But existing mobile user plane which is overlay tunnel does not have
underlying IP network awareness, which could lead to the inability in
meeting SLAs. Removing the tunnel and treating it with a IP routing
paradigm simplifies the problem.
Segment Routing has a comprehensive set of slice engineering
technologies. How to build network slicing using the Segment Routing
technology is described in [I-D.ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks].
Moreover, the stateless slice identifier encoding
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id] can be applicable to
enable per-slice forwarding policy using the IPv6 header.
3.2. Edge Computing
Edge computing, where the computing workloads and datastores are
placed closer to users, is recognized as one of the key pillars to
meet 5G's demanding requirements, with regard to low latency,
bandwidth efficiency, data locality and privacy.
Edge computing is more important than ever. This is because no
matter how much 5G New Radio improves access speeds, it won't improve
end-to-end throughput because it's largely bound to round trip delay.
Even with existing mobile architectures, it is possible to place UPFs
in a multi-tier, or to distribute UPFs, to achieve Edge Computing.
[TS.23548] and [ETSI-MEC] describes how to properly select the UPF of
adequate proximity. However, complicated and signaling-heavy
mechanisms are required to branch traffic or properly use different
UPFs. Also, if the UPF is distributed, seamless handover has to be
compromised to some extent.
IP Routing paradigm simply supports ubiquitous computing.
3.3. URLLC (Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication) support
3GPP [TR.23725] investigates the key issues for meeting the URLLC
requirements on latency, jitter and reliability in the 5G System.
The solutions provided in the document are focused at improving the
overlay protocol (GTP-U) and limits to provide a few hints into how
to map such tight-SLA into the transport network. These hints are
based on static configuration or static mapping for steering the
overlay packet into the right transport SLA. Such solutions do not
scale and hinder network economics.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
Another issue that deserves special mention is the ultra-reliability
issue. In order to support ultra-reliability with the tunnel session
paradigm, redundant user planes paths based on dual connectivity has
been proposed. The proposal has two main options.
* Dual Connectivity based end-to-end Redundant User Plane Path
* Support of redundant transmission on N3/N9 interfaces
In the case of the former, UE and hosts have RHF(Redundancy Handling
Function). In sending, RFH is to replicate the traffic onto two
GTP-U tunnels, and in receiving, RHF is to merge the traffic.
In the case of the latter, traffic are to be replicated and merged
with the same sequence for specific QoS flow, which requires further
enhancements.
And in either cases, the bigger problem is the lack of a reliable way
for the redundant sessions to get through the disjoint path: even
with the redundant sessions, if it ends up using the same
infrastructure at some points, the redundancy is meaningless.
These issues can be solved more simply without GTP-U tunnel.
In addition, Segment routing has some advantages for URLLC traffic.
First, traffic can be mapped to a disjoint path or low latency path
as needed. Second, Segment routing provides an automated reliability
protection mechanism known as TI-LFA, which is a sub-50ms FRR
mechanism that provides protection regardless of the topology through
the optimal backup path. It can be provisioned slice-aware.
4. Co-existence and Incremental Deployability
Mobile networks are composed of radio, mobile packet core, and IP
networks (access and backbone), with separate standard organizations
and communities. Therefore, in the steady state, it is difficult to
innovate to a new architecture and requires coexistence and
incremental deployment.
[RFC9433] defines the user plane convergence between GTP-U and SRv6,
so that it can co-exist with the existing user plane as needed.
[I-D.mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-architecture] defines the MUP architecture for
Distributed Mobility Management, which can be plugged into the
existing mobile service architecture. In the architecture, mobile
session information is transformed to routing information, and
operated in L3VPN scheme.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
5. Security Considerations
The deployment of this architecture is targeted in an administrative
domain, and the functionality aimes to be domain specific.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Satoru Matsushima, Shunsuke Homma,Yuji
Tochio and Jeffrey Zhang, for their insights and comments.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9433] Matsushima, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Kohno, M., Camarillo,
P., Ed., and D. Voyer, "Segment Routing over IPv6 for the
Mobile User Plane", RFC 9433, DOI 10.17487/RFC9433, July
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9433>.
[I-D.mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-architecture]
Matsushima, S., Horiba, K., Khan, A., Kawakami, Y.,
Murakami, T., Patel, K., Kohno, M., Kamata, T., Camarillo,
P., Horn, J., Voyer, D., Zadok, S., Meilik, I., Agrawal,
A., and K. Perumal, "Mobile User Plane Architecture using
Segment Routing for Distributed Mobility Management", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mhkk-dmm-srv6mup-
architecture-06, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mhkk-dmm-
srv6mup-architecture-06>.
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
[I-D.ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks]
Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., Rokui, R., Dhamija, A., and P. Maheshwari,
"Building blocks for Network Slice Realization in Segment
Routing Network", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks-03, 7 September 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ali-teas-
spring-ns-building-blocks-03>.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id]
Filsfils, C., Clad, F., Camarillo, P., Raza, S., Voyer,
D., and R. Rokui, "Stateless and Scalable Network Slice
Identification for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id-09,
29 January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id-09>.
9. Informative References
[ETSI-MEC] ETSI, "MEC in 5G Networks", ETSI White Paper No.28, June
2018.
[TS.23548] 3GPP, "5G system Enhacements for Edge Computing", 3GPP TS
23.548 17.0.0, September 2021.
[TS.23558] 3GPP, "Architecture for enabling Edge applications", 3GPP
TS 23.558 17.0.0, June 2021.
[TS.23501] 3GPP, "System Architecture for the 5G System", 3GPP TS
23.501 15.0.0, November 2017.
[TR.23725] 3GPP, "Study on enhancement of Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency
Communication (URLLC) support in the 5G Core network
(5GC)", 3GPP TR 23.725 16.2.0, June 2019.
[TS.23316] 3GPP, "Wireless and wireline convergence access support
for the 5G System (5GS)", 3GPP TS 23.316 16.7.0, September
2021.
[BBF407] BBF, "5G Wireless Wireline Convergence Architecture", BBF
TR-407 Issue:1, August 2020.
Authors' Addresses
Miya Kohno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Japan
Email: mkohno@cisco.com
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SRv6mob-arch February 2024
Francois Clad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
France
Email: fclad@cisco.com
Pablo Camarillo Garvia
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Spain
Email: pcamaril@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: zali@cisco.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
United States
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Kohno, et al. Expires 18 August 2024 [Page 8]
