DetNet 3GPP SA2 Offline Discussion Summary
DetNet 3GPP SA2
offline discussion
Ericsson,
2022 November
Outstanding issues
UE
RAN
UPF
SMF
AMF
PCF
TSCTSF
CPF:
DetNet
controller
DetNet
network
5GS logical DetNet Node
DetNet
end
system
NW-TT
1
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
N
E
F
?
2
.
S
h
o
u
l
d
u
p
l
i
n
k
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
D
e
t
N
e
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
?
NEF Alt 1
: protocol conversion
TSCTSF
CPF:
DetNet
controller
NEF
YANG over
Netconf/Restconf
N85
Protocol
conversion
Optional NEF converts between the IETF based
protocol
and 3GPP signalling
.
NEF talks IETF
protocols to DetNet controller, 3GPP protocols
to TSCTSF
.
•
Conversion adds unnecessary complexity
.
•
Complexity for NEF to parse YANG
.
•
Different functionality split with/without
NEF since no NEF deployment also needed
.
- Without NEF: TSCTSF parses YANG
- With NEF: NEF parses YANG
NEF Alt
2: transparent N85 container
TSCTSF
CPF:
DetNet
controller
NEF
YANG over
Netconf/Restconf
YANG over
container in
N85
Optional NEF transparently relays YANG config
between the IETF based
protocol
and 3GPP
signalling
.
Lower complexity, but still impacts
NEF
.
•
No need for NEF to interpret YANG
•
No protocol conversion
•
Requires container in N85 to carry YANG
•
NEF to support Netconf/Restconf
Note: in the TSN case, Netconf support is at
the TSN AF, and NEF is not involved.
NEF Alt
3: no NEF in this release
TSCTSF
CPF:
DetNet
controller
YANG over
Netconf/Restconf
No NEF supported for DetNet
in this release.
•
TSCTSF can perform firewalling, only accept
signalling from known sources
(independent
of NEF).
•
TSCTSF can validate
YANG
configuration
(independent of NEF)
.
•
Trust in the DetNet controller is ensured by
operator
bus
i
ness agreement
with DetNet
controller provider (if different from
operator).
•
Note: such business agreement is always
needed since DetNet controller
can influence
QoS for
all
UEs in a given network
, not just
for a single UE as in the case of an AF
.
NEF:
conclusion
●
Alt 1
: protocol conversion
has too high complexity impact
–
not justified
●
Alt 2: transparent N85 container, moderate complexity impact –
less preferred alternative
●
Alt 3
: no NEF in this release has no impact, business agreements ensure trust –
preferred alternative
Routing information: overview
●
In general (fixed)
deterministic networks,
DetNet controller may
provide explicit flow
routing to routers
●
DetNet controller may
collect topology
information
–
Not DetNet specific
function, general RFCs
may be used for Routers
to provide neighbour
info.
●
No routing info from
Routers to controller
CPF:
DetNet
controller
R
R
R
R
R
R
E
E
Explicit flow routing
for DetNet
Routing information: 5GS aspects
, DL
●
Out of scope of study to
influence routing in 5GS.
●
DL routing determined
by Endhost behind the
terminal – no need to
influence DL routing by
DetNet controller.
●
Possible to support
multiple IP@ per PDU
Session (i.e., framed
routing)
●
5GS does not support
generic IP router
functionality DL, i.e.,
support of a single IP@
reachable over multiple
PDU Sessions
●
No routing problem in
DL.
CPF:
DetNet
controller
5GS
R
R
R
R
R
E1
E
E2
E3
Routing information: 5GS aspects
, UL
●
No issue if:
–
Only one UL interface
exists
–
There is a single path
only to an endhost
–
Static UL routing
configured if it is also
known in the DetNet
controller.
●
Should 3GPP define
functions to provide static
UL routing table towards
the DetNet controller?
●
Note: alternative
deployment option exists,
see next slide.
CPF:
DetNet
controller
5GS
R
R
R
R
R
E1
E
E2
E3
Deployoment option for UL handling
●
Model the N6 uplink router
as a separate logical
Router entity.
●
N6 routing is already today
out of 3GPP scope,
implementation specific.
●
DetNet controller may
directly control N6 UL
routing.
●
Signalling between DetNet
controller and Router on
N6 can be considered out
of scope of 3GPP
; setting
explicit routes possible by
controller.
●
No need for 5GS to provide
UL routing information.
CPF:
DetNet
controller
5GS
R
R
R
R
R
E1
E
E2
E3
R
UL routing on N6,
implementation specific
(out of 3GPP scope)
UL Routing information: conclusion
●
No need for 3GPP to define mechanisms to provide UL static routing information from UPF
/NW-TT
to DetNet controller.
–
In many deployments, there is no need (single interface, single route to host)
–
If the UL routing is static, it can easily be configured into the controller also
–
Deployment option with direct interface between DetNet controller and N6 UL routing function if
signalling is needed
–
N6 UL routing is in general out of 3GPP scope, so we should avoid standardizing 3GPP
functionality
The DetNet 3GPP SA2 offline discussion held by Ericsson in November 2022 covers several outstanding issues related to DetNet architecture, including support for an optional NEF, uplink routing information reporting, and the role of NEF in protocol conversion. Three alternative approaches for NEF implementation are discussed, with the conclusion favoring a no-NEF approach in this release based on trust established through business agreements. The discussion emphasizes the complexity impact of NEF on protocol conversion and suggests transparent relay of YANG configuration as a preferred alternative with lower complexity impact. Overall, the focus is on ensuring trust in the DetNet controller and addressing protocol conversion challenges effectively.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
DetNet 3GPP SA2 offline discussion Ericsson, 2022 November | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 1 of 12
Outstanding issues 1. Support an optional NEF? 5GS logicalDetNet Node CPF: DetNet controller TSCTSF PCF AMF SMF DetNet end system NW-TT DetNet network UE RAN UPF 2. Should uplink routing information be reported to the DetNet controller? | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 2 of 12
NEF Alt 1: protocol conversion YANG over Netconf/Restconf Optional NEF converts between the IETF based protocol and 3GPP signalling. NEF talks IETF protocols to DetNet controller, 3GPP protocols to TSCTSF. Conversion adds unnecessary complexity. Complexity for NEF to parse YANG. Different functionality split with/without NEF since no NEF deployment also needed. - Without NEF: TSCTSF parses YANG - With NEF: NEF parses YANG CPF: DetNet controller N85 TSCTSF NEF Protocol conversion | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 3 of 12
NEF Alt 2: transparent N85 container YANG over Netconf/Restconf Optional NEF transparently relays YANG config between the IETF based protocol and 3GPP signalling. Lower complexity, but still impacts NEF. No need for NEF to interpret YANG No protocol conversion Requires container in N85 to carry YANG NEF to support Netconf/Restconf Note: in the TSN case, Netconf support is at the TSN AF, and NEF is not involved. YANG over container in N85 CPF: DetNet controller TSCTSF NEF | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 4 of 12
NEF Alt 3: no NEF in this release YANG over Netconf/Restconf No NEF supported for DetNet in thisrelease. TSCTSF can perform firewalling, only accept signalling from known sources (independent of NEF). TSCTSF can validate YANG configuration (independent of NEF). Trustin theDetNet controller is ensuredby operator business agreement with DetNet controller provider (ifdifferent from operator). Note: suchbusiness agreement is always neededsinceDetNet controller can influence QoS for allUEs in a given network, notjust for a single UE asin thecaseof an AF. CPF: DetNet controller TSCTSF | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 5 of 12
NEF: conclusion Alt 1: protocol conversion has toohighcomplexityimpact notjustified Alt 2: transparent N85 container, moderate complexity impact less preferred alternative Alt 3: no NEF in this release has no impact, business agreements ensure trust preferred alternative | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 6 of 12
Routing information: overview In general (fixed) deterministic networks, DetNet controller may provide explicit flow routing to routers DetNet controller may collect topology information CPF: DetNet controller Explicit flow routing for DetNet R R Not DetNet specific function, general RFCs may be used for Routers to provide neighbour info. No routing info from Routers to controller R E R E R R | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 7 of 12
Routing information: 5GS aspects, DL Out of scope of study to influence routing in 5GS. DL routing determined by Endhost behind the terminal no need to influence DL routing by DetNet controller. Possible to support multiple IP@ per PDU Session (i.e., framed routing) 5GS does not support generic IP router functionality DL, i.e., support of a single IP@ reachable over multiple PDU Sessions No routingproblemin DL. CPF: DetNet controller E1 R R R E 5GS E2 R R E3 | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 8 of 12
Routing information: 5GS aspects, UL No issue if: OnlyoneUL interface exists Thereis a single path onlyto an endhost Static UL routing configured ifitis also knownin theDetNet controller. Should 3GPP define functions to provide static UL routing table towards theDetNet controller? Note: alternative deployment option exists, seenextslide. CPF: DetNet controller E1 R R R E 5GS E2 R R E3 | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 9 of 12
DeployomentoptionforUL handling ModeltheN6 uplink router asa separate logical Router entity. N6 routing is alreadytoday out of 3GPP scope, implementation specific. DetNet controller may directly control N6 UL routing. Signalling between DetNet controller and Router on N6 canbe considered out of scopeof 3GPP; setting explicit routes possible by controller. No need for 5GS to provide UL routing information. CPF: DetNet controller E1 R R R E 5GS R E2 R R E3 UL routing on N6, implementation specific (out of 3GPP scope) | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 10 of 12
UL Routing information: conclusion No need for 3GPP to define mechanisms to provide UL static routing information from UPF/NW-TT to DetNet controller. In many deployments, there is no need (single interface, single route to host) If the UL routing is static, it can easily be configured into the controller also Deployment option with direct interface between DetNet controller and N6 UL routing function if signalling is needed N6 UL routing is in general out of 3GPP scope, so we should avoid standardizing 3GPP functionality | ETHGMS Gy rgy Mikl s | 2022-11-24 | Open | Page 11 of 12
