Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] GPRS Tunnel Protocol (GTP)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:39:33 +0100

Hi,

Not sure if you are asking about how the mobility management in GPRS compares
with Mobile IP base mobility control.   Since you have mentioned GTP in GPRS,
there are a couple of issues  to clarify  before  even comparing their
"performances":

1) In GPRS/UMTS network,  the  mobility management is GPRS specific. To put it
simply, it is based on GTP in combination with handover control in RAN. It does
Not use Mobile IP.

2) There has been no standard yet  about where and  how Mobile IP is used in or
between  GPRS/UMTS  PLMN's although there were some discussions in the past
about how Mobile IPv4 can be integrated into GPRS/UMTS architecture.

3) If GPRS mobility management and Mobile IP based mobility are "compared",  it
is important to remember that they operate at different levels/layers: GPRS
mobility management operates at the GPRS bearer level while Mobile IP operates
at the IP layer which is above the GPRS bearer.

4) Mobile IPv6, however, is expected to have some impact on some  operations on
GPRS/UMTS, especially on IPv6 (only) IMS. This is  because Mobile IPv6 runs on
an end-to-end basis, i.e, an IPv6 GPRS/UMTS terminal can activate MIPv6 with its
peers without the knowledge of the intermediate GPRS/UMTS systems. We have done
some analysis. The details can be found in an I-D located at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-mobileip-packet-fitlering-xc-01.txt
.

Although it would be interesting to see how the performance of GPRS mobility
compares  that of Mobile IP based mobility, I am not sure if they are directly
comparable.

Xiaobao Chen

Orange PCS

"Ashish Sharma" <[email-masked]> on 23/07/2003 14:13:49

To:   "Anurag Uxa" <[email-masked]>
      "Amir Hermelin" <[email-masked]>
cc:   [email-masked]
      [email-masked] (bcc: Xiaobao CHEN/EN/HTLUK)

Subject:  RE: [mobile-ip] GPRS Tunnel Protocol (GTP)

Hi

since we are on this, i needed some information on how does GPRS stand vis a
vis mobile IP in terms of --
packet routing efficiency, round trip delays (from a client's perspective),
packet loss, ability to provide handoffs (vertical and horizontal), etc

please let know if there are any sources where i could get this information
from ?

thanks.

regards,
Ashish

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Anurag Uxa
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:53 PM
To: Amir Hermelin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] GPRS Tunnel Protocol (GTP)

GSM 09.60 may help you.
it is  for GTP across the Gn and Gp Interface.

Regard's
Anurag Uxa

*******************************************************************************
Important.
Confidentiality: This communication is intended for the above-named person and
may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Any opinions expressed in this
communication are not necessarily those of the company. If it has come to you
in error you must take no action based on it, nor must you copy or show it to
anyone; please delete/destroy and inform the sender immediately.

Monitoring/Viruses
Orange may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current
legislation.  Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good
computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.

Orange PCS Limited is a subsidiary of Orange SA and is registered in England No
2178917, with its address at St James Court, Great Park Road, Almondsbury Park,
Bradley Stoke, Bristol BS32 4QJ.
*******************************************************************************

---

From: "Ed Remmell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:09:38 -0700

Xiaobao -

> 4) Mobile IPv6, however, is expected to have some impact on 
> some  operations on GPRS/UMTS, especially on IPv6 (only) IMS. 
> This is  because Mobile IPv6 runs on an end-to-end basis, 
> i.e, an IPv6 GPRS/UMTS terminal can activate MIPv6 with its 
> peers without the knowledge of the intermediate GPRS/UMTS 
> systems. We have done some analysis. The details can be found 
> in an I-D located at 

>From this draft:

"4.1.2 The Case of Route Optimisation when the CN is mobile
...
 
   A typical example is the case when  the GSSN uses ingress 
   filtering for selecting the UMTS sessions.Although the packet sent 
   from the mobile CN to the MN has the  "Home Address Destination 
   Option" containing its Home  address[1], a gateway node as 
   an intermediate node operating standard IPv6 does not read it. 
   This will have some serious implications such as the disruption of 
   existing live sessions."

"5. Requirements on Inter-working Mobile IPv6 with Packet Filtering

   The following requirements are recommended for a gateway node that
   performs source address and/or destination address based packet
   filtering:

   * A gateway node running standard IPv6 should not be required to
     change to support packet filtering function.

   * The policy control functions for packet filtering such as the PCF
     should not be aware of the mobility control based on mobile IP."

"6.1.2 The Recommended Practice in case of Route Optimisation

   For a CN communicating to a MN using route optimisation
   to send packets directly to the MN, the CN should insert its IP
   address in the Hop-by-Hop Options Header. In the case where the CN
   is a mobile itself and away from its network, the CN should insert
   its Home IP address in the Options filed in the Hop-by-Hop Options
   Header."

Unless I'm misreading this, it sounds like you are recommending that the
issues that MIPv6 route optimization introduces to GPRS packet filtering
(performed by gateway nodes, part of the GPRS infrastructure) should not
be fixed on the GPRS gateway nodes, but instead should be fixed in all
MIPv6 CNs (i.e. all non-GPRS servers on the IPv6 Internet,
MIPv6-capable, now forced to implement this brand new GPRS-specific
Hop-by-Hop Options Header requirement solely to avoid needing to upgrade
the GPRS gateway nodes). IMO this is the wrong recommendation... you
should fix this problem in the GPRS gateway nodes.

Thanks.
- Ed Remmell
Elmic Systems, USA
http://www.elmic.com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/2003