[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis

DMM Working Group                                               S. Homma
Internet-Draft                                                       NTT
Intended status: Informational                               T. Miyasaka
Expires: February 11, 2019                                 KDDI Research
                                                           S. Matsushima
                                                                SoftBank
                                                                D. Voyer
                                                             Bell Canada
                                                         August 10, 2018


    User Plane Protocol and Architectural Analysis on 3GPP 5G System
                  draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01

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 February 11, 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  Control Plane Protocol for GTP-U  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.4.  GTP-U message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.5.  Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.6.  Observations Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  5GS Architectural Requirements for User Plane Protocols . . .  15
     4.1.  Overview of 5G System Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.1.1.  UPF Functionalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.2.  Architectural Requirements for User Plane     Protocols .  18
   5.  Evaluation Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     5.1.  Supporting PDU Session Type Variations  . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.2.  Nature of Data Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.3.  Supporting Transport Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.4.  Data Path Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.5.  QoS Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     5.6.  Traffic Detection and Flow Handling . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     5.7.  Supporting Network Slicing Diversity  . . . . . . . . . .  24
   6.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Security Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

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 February 11, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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)

   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.

   [GTP-U-3]:  GTP-U supports load balancing by using dynamic UDP source
               port allocation.








Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


      [Uplink]
          .-     .-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
          |      | |Payload |         |Payload |         |Payload |
          | PDU <  +--------+         +--------+         +--------+
          |(3GPP)| |Inner IP|         |Inner IP|         |Inner IP|
          |      '-+--------+ - - - - +--------+ - - - - +--------+
          |        | GTP-U  |         | GTP-U  |
          |        |(TEID=1)|         |(TEID=2)|
      GTP<         +--------+         +--------+
      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  |
          |        |(TEID=4)|         |(TEID=3)|
      GTP<         +--------+         +--------+
      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 February 11, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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].  However in [TS.29.281-3GPP] "DSCP
   marking based on QCI" is specified but "DSCP marking based on QFI"
   has not been noted.  To support QFI of 5G QoS framework, it seems to
   need to update [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.






Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


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
   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].



Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   [GTP-U-14]: GTP-U supports tunnel management messages "End Marker".

   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].

     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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | 0x1 |1|0|1|0|0|     0xff      |           Length              |



Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           TEID = 1654                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Sequence Number = 0        |N-PDU Number=0 |NextExtHdr=0x85|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     GTP-U Extension Header (PDU Session Container)
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  ExtHdrLen=1  |Type=0 | Spare   |0|    QFI    |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                     .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                  Figure 4: GTP-U Protocol Stack Example





Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


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 February 11, 2019              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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.

   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].



Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   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].

   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



Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   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].

   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).

   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.  This specification is described in 5.7.1 of
   [TS.23.501-3GPP].

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.




Homma, et al.           Expires February 11, 2019              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   Expected deployment scenarios explain the evaluations purpose in the
   corresponding aspects.

   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 February 11, 2019              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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 February 11, 2019              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   [TS.23.501-3GPP]
              3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.501
              (V15.1.0): System Architecture for 5G System; Stage 2",
              March 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/FTP/Specs/2018-03/
              Rel-15/23_series/23501-f10.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 February 11, 2019              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 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
              (V15.3.0): GPRS Tunneling Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)",
              June 2018, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
              archive/29_series/29.281/29281-f30.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 February 11, 2019              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-01       August 2018


   [TS.38.415-3GPP]
              3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 38.415
              (v1.0.0): NG-RAN; PDU Session User Plane protocol (work in
              progress)", June 2018, <http://ftp.3gpp.org//Specs/
              archive/38_series/38.415/38415-100.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 February 11, 2019              [Page 30]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/