SMF-UPF set interface proto definitions #2033 #2437
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ronit-kumar-acl <ronit.k@altencalsoftlabs.com>
| Action action = 2; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| message FlowMatchNew { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs IP protocol field.
| uint32 tcp_dst = 4; | ||
| uint32 udp_src = 5; | ||
| uint32 udp_dst = 6; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need for tcp vs udp port, just have one set for l4 src and dst port.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure , I'll take care of the same.
| bytes mac_dst_value = 2; | ||
| bytes upper_mac_src_value = 3; | ||
| bytes upper_mac_dst_value = 4; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you define what is upper mac value means?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Upper Source MAC address value contains the upper value of an MAC address range.
8.2.93 MAC address
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/129200_129299/129244/15.08.00_60/ts_129244v150800p.pdf
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| message SdfFilters { //8.2.5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please include link to reference doc in source code file. This would make it easier to find referenced section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I'll include the below in src file too.
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/129200_129299/129244/15.08.00_60/ts_129244v150800p.pdf
| DENY = 1; | ||
| } | ||
| Action action = 2; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you define single set of action, msg FlowDescriptor and ApplyAction both has action and already diverged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think SetGroupFAR dictates the forwarding action so lets just remove this Action from here
|
|
||
| message FlowMatchNew { | ||
| string ipv4_src = 1; | ||
| string ipv4_dst = 2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the IP address shld be able ip version agnostic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi
Could you please elaborate the "able ip version agnostic". I didn't understand this.
| message EthPackFilter { | ||
| uint32 eth_filt_id = 1; | ||
| uint32 eth_filt_prop = 2; | ||
| MacAddress mac_addr = 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
which end point has this mac address ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PDI IE within PFCP Session Establishment Request has this as an IE.
7.5.2.2-3: Ethernet Packet Filter IE within PFCP Session Establishment Request
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/129200_129299/129244/15.08.00_60/ts_129244v150800p.pdf
| uint32 s_tag = 5; | ||
| SdfFilters sdf_filters = 6; | ||
| uint32 ethertype = 7; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we going to support ethernet filtering, we need to support otherL2 related stuff in session establishment (5.13.1).
I do not see that in this this protobuf, Am I missing something?
| //UserPlId user_pl_id = 11; | ||
| //UserId user_id = 12; | ||
| //TraceInfo tr_info = 13; | ||
| //ApnDnn apn_dnn = 14; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its not good practice to keep commented out code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, I'l take care of the same.
|
|
||
|
|
||
| message UpfRes {} | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, it has been now updated and will be pushed soon,
| uint32 tcp_dst = 4; | ||
| uint32 udp_src = 5; | ||
| uint32 udp_dst = 6; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You may consider Oneof type here: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#oneof
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I'll check and modify.
| //PDR message Table 7.5.2.2-1: Create PDR IE within PFCP Session Establishment Request | ||
| message SetGroupPDR { | ||
| uint32 pdr_id = 1; | ||
| int32 sess_ver_no = 2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is this sess_ver_no refer to? Is this the same value as the session level version in SessionSet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was a discussion which was going on wherein the group messages will also maintain a version number apart from the Set message.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was a discussion which was going on wherein the group messages will also maintain a version number apart from the Set message.
We should remove it, confirmed with @pshelar. Keeping one version number is going to be simpler
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, thanks.
| uint32 bar_id = 6; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // ToDO SetGroupQER write |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add something like our current QOS policy here?
message FlowQos {
enum Qci {
QCI_0 = 0;
QCI_1 = 1;
QCI_2 = 2;
QCI_3 = 3;
QCI_4 = 4;
QCI_5 = 5;
QCI_6 = 6;
QCI_7 = 7;
QCI_8 = 8;
QCI_9 = 9;
QCI_65 = 65;
QCI_66 = 66;
QCI_67 = 67;
QCI_70 = 70;
QCI_75 = 75;
QCI_79 = 79;
}
uint32 max_req_bw_ul = 1;
uint32 max_req_bw_dl = 2;
uint32 gbr_ul = 3;
uint32 gbr_dl = 4;
Qci qci = 5;
QosArp arp = 6;
}
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| message ApplyAction { //8.2.26 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like we can simplify this structure a bit by just defining a enum of Action and then directly using the repeated Action.
For example:
enum Action {
DROP = 0;
FORW = 1;
...
}
message SetGroupFAR {
uint32 far_id = 1; //FAR ID should be less than 2^32
...
repeated Action action_to_apply = 3;
...
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Marie, I will modify accordingly and push.
ulaskozat
added
product: 5g mvc
|
Sorry for delay in response, somehow I didn't receive the notification or I missed it. I'll get back with responses. |
|
#2540 Commit contains the updated pipelined.proto along with the client to talk to pipelined. |
|
Closing as the latest proto have been defined in #3268. |
6 participants
Signed-off-by: ronit-kumar-acl ronit.k@altencalsoftlabs.com
Summary
Common set interface proto definitions for 5G. Contains SMF to UPF Proto definitions.
Test Plan
Compiled successfully inside AGW VM.
Additional Information