Re: New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

Hi Kausik,

Many thanks for your clarification below.

in-line..

--
Uma C.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:48 PM Majumdar, Kausik <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Uma,
>
>
>
> My comments are inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Uma Chunduri
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2020 6:18 PM
> *To:* dmm <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for
> draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt
>
>
>
>

>
>
We already described the generic case where security is applied (section
> 2.6), when the user plane emits the packet to transport (could be N3/N9
> interfaces or S1U interface terminating at SGWs).
>
That addresses mostly shared transport cases.
>
If I understand correctly, you want security done by PE's before gNB/UPF??
> I can imagine few usef of this but can you explain why you are looking for
> this option?
>

>
Yes, I am looking for UE traffic to be secured by the PE’s before gNB/UPF.
> There could be specific traffic types for MIOT, EMBB, and URLLC service
> types where security is more important. Even this draft is addressing data
> path security for these service types the security characteristics needs to
> be preserved all the to the traffic destination, it can’t stop at SGWs or
> UPF. Then, the purpose for UE traffic to achieve end to end security is
> lost.
>


Ack. The case currently being handled is only for shared transport
perspective and security for all the traffic and not per particular set of
traffic.



> Specially if we look into SD-WAN deployments the security is the key
> aspects and the SD-WAN Edge Nodes establish secure IPSec tunnels between
> them. Here
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-08 nicely
> captures SD-WAN use cases for Homogeneous and Hybrid networks. Considering
> that, if the UE traffic needs to go beyond SGWs/UPF to the actual
> destination in the Data Network connected through SD-WAN Edge Nodes
> (Enterprise 5G case) the security characteristics for all the SSTs need to
> be preserved to maintain the E2E security.
>

>
I see while this can be done from UE side E2E, you are seeking a network
solution with SST granularity, not only beyond UPF in the DN but also in
the mobility domain.

I think it would be good to expand the UDP Src Port range table captured in
> Figure 2. For all of the current SST types we could come up with different
> Range where E2E security is the key requirement for the UE traffic like
> below:
>

>
UDP Src Port Range Ax – Ay : SST - MIOT with Security
>
..
>

> So you may need this for all SSTs then. Sure, we can enhance this part
(after consulting with other co-authors).



>
>
Sure. But is this a mandatory option for your E2E use case with
> SD-WAN beyond mobility domain?
>

>
I would say it is a mandatory option for E2E use cases with SD-WAN beyond
> mobility domain. If you look into the retail stores, education, etc (small
> to medium enterprise deployments), majority of the connections land into
> cloud with a secure tunnel connectivity to the cloud GW. These enterprise
> SD-WAN edge devices accept connections not only from wireless APs, but also
> for the mobility traffic through SWGs/UPF. In the case of UE mobility
> traffic needs to land into large enterprise with a security aspects, the
> SD-WAN GW in the corporate network need to preserve that behavior for E2E
> security.
>

>
Hope it clarifies.
>

Yes, it does. Thank you!

How the SD-WAN GW map the TN characteristics in non-mobility domain to
> maintain UE’s E2E traffic characteristics is being worked out, and would be
> submitted.
>
I have a few more questions and shall talk offline.



>
Regards,
>
Kausik
>

>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm