From: ietf-liaisons-bounces@lists.ietf.org on behalf of Scott W Brim [sbrim@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:55 AM To: ietf-liaisons@ietf.org Subject: [Ietf-liaisons] ITU-T NGN issues snapshot This is a list of things going on in ITU-T NGN that the IETF should be aware of as of the end of May (2005). ITU-T Questions are abbreviated <question>/<studygroup>, for example 5/13 is Question 5 (OAM) of Study Group 13 (lead NGN SG). NB this is just "NGN", including SG13 and other things with "NGN" in the name. Other work, e.g. SG15, is not in scope. However there are interesting things happening there, for example a "profile" is being defined for MPLS-as-transport, as Adrian can tell you. General summary: At this time, there is nothing I know of to be concerned about regarding protocol enhancements or other encroachments. It's almost all architecture, definition of functional elements, and some decisions about what protocols to adopt. I do get concerned about the architectural directions they take, and they could use some help there, but as far as crossing boundaries into IETF space, they aren't right now. One boundary needs to be un-crossed (see below). Details ... - Management (8/4, 5/13). 8/4 is producing M.3060, a framework for NGN Management. They are almost done with the first version. They will be producing something "final" in the next couple of months. I know that Bert, at least, has looked through it, so it's being watched. Others might want to pay attention to it too. Sharon Chisholm runs 8/4 and attends IETF. 5/13 is about OAM for ATM, Ethernet and MPLS, focusing mainly on Ethernet these days. - Mobility (6/13, 2/13, most of sg16, at least one question in sg11). They have at least one architecture for mobility and they are trying to generalize the entire concept while reusing old functional elements. A hierarchy of mobility modes is being defined, e.g. "user disconnects at one device, walks across the room and uses a different one" is a mobility mode, as is roaming without changing IP address. At the same time, they want to retain concepts like iSIM. I don't know of any "threats" here, and some of the players are sharp, but they could use some monitoring and more input. - Requirements, Scenarios, and Functional Architecture (FGNGN wg1, 2/13, FGNGN wg2, 3/13). - I hear they are producing y.ngn-accounting, which apparently uses IPDR instead of IPFix to gather data(?) - There is an assumption of IMS and the OMA framework. While the definition of "NGN" in Y.2011 says services and transport are separate, NGN "release 1" assumes IMS is a major service framework, and that the main services of interest are based in the network provider. For example there is an assumption that only one "private identity" is needed. I'm telling them that while single-signon is good, that's not the only model that needs supporting. - QoS (FGNGN wg3&4, 4/13, SG11): This includes both transport and service level signaling. They seem to have an affinity with NSIS. Larry Roberts brought his ABR-for-TCP to 4/13, having previously gotten it blessed by TIA and by SG12 (who added a "conditionally guaranteed bandwidth" class to Y.1221). 4/13 agreed to issue a problem statement along the lines of Larry's proposal and allow contributions addressing it. - Transition, "convergence", and MPLS Interworking (7/13, 12/13, 4/11, 5/13). This is about interworking of MPLS with all the other transport mechanisms out there -- ATM, FR, TDM, etc. - 7/13 covers all three planes, control/mgmt/user, but is mainly focused on user plane. 7/13 put out the Y.141x series, which were meant to be the PWE3 encapsulations, before they were ready, and changed all the terminology as they did so. I expect Y.141x to be reissued once the PWE3 encapsulations make it through RFC Editor. However, let's not push for that until 7/13 makes progress on the "general framework" for interworking (I'm involved there). - 12/13 is strictly a reflection of what's going on in the MFA Forum, for ATM and FR control interworking with MPLS pseudowire signaling and possibly BGP -- the activity to watch is in MFA, and they're pretty good about bringing things to the IETF. The only thing to be concerned about is if MFA are driven to ask for IETF changes due to compromises in ITU-T. So far so good. - MPLS and other transport OAM is mainly done in 5/13 but some interworking is covered in 7/13. Right now they are focused on OAM for Ethernet-as-transport. 4/11 advises on signaling interworking issues, to make sure the interworking supports the needed functions. - IPv6 (9/13). The charter is "the impact of IPv6 on NGNs". For a while I was concerned because they seemed to be recommending a subset scenario, for example to use SCTP for mobility. They backed off from that. This is the general issue in a nutshell, for ITU-T use of IETF protocols for NGN: they are trying to apply IETF products in a particular scenario and could use some advice from the experts doing so. That's it for now ... swb