You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For Update PDR, handle_f_teid is called with create = false. Despite that setting, a new TEID would still be allocated, only the registration of the new TEID would be skipped. This is clearly wrong, when a new TEID is allocated is must also registered.
The other question is if a Update PDR should be permitted to allocate a new TEID. There is no clear guidance spelled out in the specification. All references to F-TEID allocation always put this into relation of PDR creation. The is no mentioning of PDR modification in this context. It seems therefore safe to assume that a Update PDR might only reference an already allocated F-TEID, but might not by itself allocated a new F-TEID.
The choose mechanism in handle_f_teid therefore needs to be adjusted to only allocate a new F-TEID when create is true.
Note: it would be legal in a modify request to have a Create PDR that creates a new F-TEID and a Update PDR that references that new F-TEID. There is no order requirement for PFCP IEs, the Update PDR could therefore be encoded in the PFCP request before the Update PDR. This is not a problem for our current implementation that uses a fixed ordering when processing IE and will always process the Create PDR before the Update PDR
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
somewhat related to #34
For
Update PDR
, handle_f_teid is called withcreate = false
. Despite that setting, a new TEID would still be allocated, only the registration of the new TEID would be skipped. This is clearly wrong, when a new TEID is allocated is must also registered.The other question is if a
Update PDR
should be permitted to allocate a new TEID. There is no clear guidance spelled out in the specification. All references to F-TEID allocation always put this into relation of PDR creation. The is no mentioning of PDR modification in this context. It seems therefore safe to assume that aUpdate PDR
might only reference an already allocated F-TEID, but might not by itself allocated a new F-TEID.The choose mechanism in handle_f_teid therefore needs to be adjusted to only allocate a new F-TEID when
create
is true.Note: it would be legal in a modify request to have a
Create PDR
that creates a new F-TEID and aUpdate PDR
that references that new F-TEID. There is no order requirement for PFCP IEs, theUpdate PDR
could therefore be encoded in the PFCP request before theUpdate PDR
. This is not a problem for our current implementation that uses a fixed ordering when processing IE and will always process theCreate PDR
before theUpdate PDR
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: