Posts Tagged ‘passion’

Mwell…my dear dear journal, today I had to learn about Mobility over SAE. As we very well know, our naughty user (User Equipment) does not just stay in one single cell, but rather moves around between different antennas. As per TS 23.401 (I have studied the June edition), there are several “cases” of mobility, or handover, as the 3GPP guys call them.

What is to know about how these “cases” are delimited:

1. whether the UE only moves from one eNodeB to another (the rest of the EPS is the same) or other components (like MME and/or SGW) are also changing => X2-handover and S1-handover

2. whether or not the eNodeBs are connected each-other (when they are connected, the interface is called X2) => this results in 2 separate cases: Direct Tunneling (we have X2) and Indirect Tunneling (we don’t have X2)

3. whether or not the MME changes (is relocated, as per the TS) => no MME relocation and MME relocation scenarios

4. whether or not the SGW changes (is relocated, as per the TS) => no SGW relocation and SGW relocation scenarios

5. in each of these cases, what happens to the user-plane traffic in terms of the path it takes; the uplink usually goes directly through the new components of handover, but the downlink data is forwarded back and forth around those elements – in the diagrams attached I have represented the user-plane in dotted lines – hope you’d like it 😛

6. the user-plane flow problem appears only in the time interval that the handover is not completed, otherwise it is the usual; this is why there is only a downlink user-plane traffic described

So—let’s do this by the book.

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.1.2 – X2-based handover with NO SGW relocation and NO MME relocation (implicit direct tunneling)

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via X2)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

55112

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.1.3 – X2-based handover with SGW relocation and NO MME relocation (implicit direct tunneling)

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> source SGW -(via S1-U)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

55113

* no MME relocation for X2-based handover :d

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.2.2 – S1-based handover, NO SGW relocation and MME relocation + Direct Tunneling

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is present

– the downlink data flows this way: PWG -(via S5/S8)> SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via X2)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

55122-dir

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.2.2 – S1-based handover, NO SGW relocation and MME relocation + Indirect Tunneling

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is NOT present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via S1-U)> SGW -(via S1-U)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

* this is the case when there are some downlink packets that have been forwarded from the SGW to the source eNB, BEFORE the handover is completed; this means that the source eNB (knowing there is a handover ongoing), resends/sends back these packets to the SGW they came from; the SGW, at this point, should be aware of the handover and buffer the packets until the handover is completed, then forward them via the appropriate S1-U to the target eNB

55122-indir

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.2.3 – S1-based handover, SGW relocation and NO MME relocation + Indirect Tunneling

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is NOT present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> source SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via S1-U)> source SGW -(via…to check this up)> target SGW -(via S1-U)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

55123-indir-no-mme

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.2.3 – S1-based handover, SGW relocation and MME relocation + Direct Tunneling

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> source SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via X2)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

55123-dir

TS 23.401, section 5.5.1.2.3 – S1-based handover, SGW relocation and MME relocation + Indirect Tunneling

55123-indir

– UE moves from source eNB to target eNB, the X2 interface is NOT present

– the downlink data flows this way: PGW -(via S5/S8)> source SGW -(via S1-U)> source eNB -(via S1-U)> source SGW -(via…to check this up)> target SGW -(via S1-U)> target eNB -(via LTE radio)> UE

 

The signaling required for these handovers are described in TS 23.401 as a flow and in TS 29.274 at the IE level.

I will try to describe each flow (or at least the most significant ones) in future articles. Enjoy :p

At first, I thought I was too noob to understand this stuff. I still consider myself a noob, but the way these TSs are written sometimes really gets on my nerves.

Let’s just consider the case of the S1-based handover with MME relocation and SGW relocation and Indirect Tunneling – meaning there is no X2 link between the source and target eNBs. All I can do for the moment is to look at the S11 interface, because this is the one I have the opportunity to study at this point.

So, the 2 TSs involved in this case, at least at the high  level are TS 23.401 – which describes the message flows between the SAE entities and TS 29.274 – which describes each message and its IEs.

The S1 based handover with MME/SGW relocation and Indirect Tunneling looks something like this:

55123-indir

In order to make this more human-readable, I have considered the following scenario:

mme2

where my UE (UE-1) moves from eNB 30.0.0.1 to eNB 30.0.0.5 (which have an X2 link together) – doing X2 handover (with no MME relocation), then it moves from eNB 30.0.0.5 to eNB 30.0.0.8 (which don’t have an X2 link between them). As you can see from the picture, these 2 eNBs belong to 2 different MMEs and SGWs. This means that, when the UE moves from eNB5 (30.0.0.5) to eNB8(30.0.0.8), it will generate an S1 handover signaling between the source MME – MME1 (30.0.1.1), source SGW – SGW1 (30.0.2.1), target MME – MME4 (30.0.1.4) and target SGW – SGW2 (30.0.2.2). As there is no X2 link between eNB5 and eNB5, the downlink packets coming from the PGW while the UE is in the handover process with reach eNB5, then they will be “reflected” back to SG1, which will then forward them via an “indirect” tunnel to SGW2, which will forward them to the new eNB8, which is in charge of my UE.

The flow is like this (3GPP copy-pasted 🙂 )

ts1

1)  So, as this picture states, once the handover is decided, the source MME sends a Forward Relocation Request to the target MME. This message must at least contain the following mandatory IEs, as per TS 29.274:

– IMSI

– Sender’s F-TEID for Control Plane

– MME/SGSN UE EPS PDN Connections

– SGW S11/S4 IP Address and TEID for Control Plane

– MME/SGSN UE MM Context

2) Then the target MME sends a Create Session Request message to the target SGW, including (M == Mandatory):

– IMSI (M)

– RAT Type – here is E-UTRAN (M)

– Sender F-TEID for Control Plane – here it is the IP address of the source MME: 30.0.1.4 + it’s TEID/GRE Key (this “key” is actually a hexadecimal number on 2 bytes) (M)

– APN Name (M)

– Maximum APN Restriction (M)

– LBI – Linked EPS Bearer ID – indicates the default bearer of the connection – the ID of the default bearer, usually this has value 5 (C)

– PGW S5/S8 Address for Control Plane or PMIP – this is the IP address of the PGW: 20.0.0.1 (C)

3) the target SGW replies to the target MME with a Create Session Response message, containing:

– Cause (M)

– Sender F-TEID for Control Plane – this is the IP address of the target SGW: 30.0.2.2 (C)

– APN Restriction (M)

– Bearer Contexts created (M) – this means that all the bearers that have the OK to be created for the UE in question are going to be present here, in a separate group IE; the IEs within a Bearer Context have the following:

— EBI – EPS Bearer ID (M)

— Cause (M)

— S1-U SGW F-TEID – the IP address of the SGW used for user-plane and a TEID/GRE identifier on 2 bytes – this is usually the same identifier used for the initial traffic of this user, _before_ the handover, let’s just call it Key-A – which is the uplink identifier for the user (C)

— Bearer Level QoS – the new QoS parameters, if they have been changed (C)

** Let’s stop for a second a recap. What do I have at this point? I have an UE (UE-1 in the picture) with an IP address (let’s say: 40.0.0.91). It is attached to the eNB 30.0.0.5, having a default bearer in place with the MME 30.0.1.1 (source) and the SGW 30.0.2.1 (source). This default bearer has an uplink identifier TEID, called as above Key-A, which also has a downlink identifier TEID, called Key-1. Let’s say that what travels in uplink has a key made out of letters, and what travels in downlink has keys made out of numbers 🙂

Ooook, what’s next. Well, as my UE moves to eNB 30.0.0.8, AND there is no X2 link between eNB5 and eNB8, target MME creates an indirect tunnel for the packets. Once the UE has moved to eNB8, the uplink flows directly from this new eNB, to the new SGW and so on. So, the indirect path is for the downlink packets, more precisely, for THOSE downlink packets that have already been routed by the source SGW to the source eNB (eNB5). eNB5 cannot contact eNB8 directly, so it re-routes these packets back to the source SGW, which will also re-route them via this indirect tunnel to the target SGW – which has direct S1-U connectivity to the target eNB to deliver the packets to my dear UE 🙂

How does EPC do that?

4) Target MME (30.0.1.4) sends a Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Request message to the Target SGW (30.0.2.2), containing all the grouped IEs Bearer Contexts that are to be forwarded this way, this grouped IE being the only Mandatory IE in this message. This Bearer Context IE contains:

— EBI – EPS Bearer ID (M)

— S1-U eNodeB F-TEID for data forwarding – this is the IP address of the target eNB (30.0.0.8) and its associated TEID/GRE key, let’s call it Key -2. This key instructs the target SGW about the destination of the packets for my UE (C)

5) then the Target SGW (30.0.2.2) responds to this message with a Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Response message. This message has 2 Mandatory IEs: the Cause and the Bearer Contexts grouped IE. This Bearer Context IE has:

— EBI (M)

— Cause (M)

— S1-U SGW F-TEID for data forwarding – this is the IP address of the target SGW and its TEID/GRE identifier – Key-B

6) After this, the target MME sends a Forward Relocation Response message to the source MME, instructing it about the bearers that have been accepted for creation on this indirect path

7) Now, the source MME (30.0.1.1) sends a Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Request to the source SGW (30.0.2.1), with elements similar to the corresponding message above, except that in this case, the Bearer Context has the TEID/GRE identifiers of the target SGW, contained in the Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Response from above – Key-B – when source SGW will forward the packets to target SGW, this will be the GRE Identifier used for encapsulating those packets

8) The source SGW responds with a Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Response message, same as above, but the TEID/GRE ID is the one of the IP address of the source SGW. This ID shall be used for uplink data on the indirect tunnel from the source eNB to the source SGW. Let’s call this ID Key-3.

*** At this point, we have an indirect tunnel created between the following entities:

source eNB (30.0.0.5) -> source SGW (30.0.2.1) : TEID Key-3

source SGW (30.0.2.1) -> target SGW (30.0.2.2) : TEID  Key-B

target SGW (30.0.2.2) -> target eNB (30.0.0.8) : TEID Key-2

At this point, the user traffic is like this:

traffic

1: packets already forwarded by the source SGW to the source eNB are “reflected” by this eNB – use the downlink GRE ID established initially, Key-1

2: the reflected packets from source eNB back to source SGW use the GRE negotiated via the messages above: Key-3

3: packets then travel on the tunnel from source to target SGW, via the TEID/GRE ID: Key-B

4: then the target SGW finally forwards the packets down to the target eNB via GRE ID: Key-2

*** During all this complicated process, the uplink is already using the target eNB as source for the encapsulating tunnel

So, what happens afterwards?

9) the target MME sends a Modify Bearer Request message to the target SGW, describing the newly created tunnels for downlink, not the indirect ones, the usual, direct ones and the target SGW replies with a Modify Bearer Response message in order to acknowledge (or state a cause for rejecting) this

10) the source MME deletes its session from its (source) SGW, using a Delete Session Request /  Delete Session Response pair of messages, carefully indicating the SGW that this is only a “local detach” of the UE, not a complete detach, meaning that the UE just moved and the local information about it is no longer valid, NOT that the UE disappeared from the network and the resources are to be deleted !

11) 12) both pairs of source and target MME/SGW now delete the indirect tunnel by exchanging the Delete Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Request / Delete Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Response messages.

And everybody is happy.

EXCEPT Me, because there are a lot of misleading and confusing “explanations” in the specs regarding this type of scenarios, like for instance:

a) one spec (TS 23.401) states that the delete session procedure should have Cause and LBI IEs in the Create Session Request message, while TS 29.274 defines these 2 IEs as Conditional, and, as per the condition in place, none of them should appear in this message when the source MME disconnects from the source SGW. Instead, the SGW should look at the Indication Flags in this request: if the Operation Indication is set, then this is a full detach, if the Scope Indication is set, this is a local detach.

b) look at the above flags: shouldn’t it be better to have just 1 flag, and, if it is set, we have a full detach, otherwise we have a local detach?

c) what happens in the S1 handover with no SGW relocation (whether or not the MME is relocated) and Indirect Tunneling? How is that going? Do I still send the two pairs of Create Indirect Data Forwarding Tunnel Request/Response?

and more to come

by Joe Haldeman

Awesome! Thank you, Kai

The Piano Guys

Posted: December 8, 2013 in media-culture
Tags: , ,

Paradise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6OHrIZ-aoI

The Lost Christmas Eve – TSO

Posted: December 4, 2013 in media-culture
Tags: ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G9YJnu-7Kw

In the depths of a night
That’s about to begin
With the feeling of snow
As it melts on your skin

And it covers the land
With a dream so intense
That it returns us all
To a child’s innocence

Unemployed. Back to Romania.

Posted: October 1, 2013 in personal
Tags: , , , , ,

Today was the second day of unemployment. Bad weather in Bucharest, therefore spending time on the Internet (which is best of the world, and I’ve done some heavy travelling in the past 5 years) and meeting friends.

This evening was the “Evening Tea” event, with my former colleagues from Ixia, more specifically part of the LTE team. Couple of hours of geeky talks, spiced up with hobbies of each of us.

InfiniTea were awesome, as they usually are. Couldn’t miss out on ordering the chesnut puree (second best in Bucharest, after Excalibur – metropotam).

For people without Facebook account, here are the pictures.

537051_10151957303826807_2140863448_n 1377473_10151957303481807_1319012982_n 625528_10151957303231807_1725746920_n 1375001_10151957302971807_144573456_n 1374253_10151957302786807_1052953300_n 1376370_10151957302536807_1554599126_n 734116_10151957302326807_498502506_n

Thank you very much for showing up and for the lovely roses!

The most freaking  AWESOME stuff I’ve seen this year! Wiki ref (includes playlist).

Metallica did it again ! Through the Never – 94 minutes of pure madness. In IMAX 3D.

I don’t even know what to tell you about it… Was it the story of the Metallica kid fan running through a mad city, fighting rebels and monsters in order to bring in a tool for the band? Was it the lightning? Was it the images of the solders during One or building a statue of justice during … And Justice for All or the crosses raising up from the ground during Master of Puppets, or the actual living puppet or the complete fire during Fuel or all combined?

It for sure was the show itself, METALLICA themselves ! and yes, the Enter Sandman on top of it all – the best scene of the entire show! (won’t spoil that one). The only big missing item was Sanitarium, but hey, you can’t have them all.

Metallica, you’ve done it again!

Listening to One I recalled one other cool thing Metallica did for us fans: Metallica MTV Icon 2003, where we had the pleasure of listening to One sung by Korn, or to Sanitarium sung by Limp Biskit or to Nothing else matters by Staind.

The only thing I regret is that it was so short. I will actually go get myself another ticket and watch it again 😀

The hardest thing I had to do was to stay on my chair. I would have so much enjoyed to jump and scream and bang my head – but I didn’t wanna get thrown out of the Kino.

Darn, I have enough adrenaline to keep me awake for a week.

… I’m getting myself another ticket. ttyl

Luceafarul / The Lucifer – the first of his poems I’ve got on my hands. I could not let it go. I was maybe 10 and didn’t understand much of the philosophical message underneath it. What I did enjoy was its rhythm and the story of the human and the falling star. I would not understand for many years ahead why the girl didn’t die to become a star. Somehow, I still don’t understand, and for sure the dry lectures of my Literature professors were not able to clear things out for me.

Luceafarul is officially the longest (98 stanzas) love story poem ever written. Ref: World Record Academy. So, yeah, next time people complain why Romanians talk too much: well, it’s in our blood, apparently 🙂 Also: we talk a lot about love and we love with all our hearts, and suffer cruelly when that love is not shared. For more info on this, just have a look at The Lucifer / Evening Star –  on www.romanianvoice.com. This is the English version, the Romanian version too is Luceafarul. Pretty long poem, and some time in gymnasium I actually knew it by heart.

Another one of my favourite poems:

The Lake (EN) / Der See (DE) / Lacul (RO)

(more…)

Check Point R77

Posted: September 20, 2013 in technical
Tags: , , ,

Yes, 77, nice number – I said.

Besides that, though:

New Threat Emulation Software Blade
New Check Point Compliance Blade
HyperSPECT Technology
Gaia Operating System Enhancements
Enhanced Gaia Software Updates
Enhanced Identity Awareness
Enhanced Endpoint Security
Note: Endpoint Security E80.50 clients will be available only by end of September 2013.
– Full Disk Encryption
– Endpoint Security Client – General
– Anti-Malware
– Firewall
– Media Encryption & Port Protection
Security Gateway Virtual Edition
Enhanced VSX
Enhanced SAM Card Support
Mobile Access

full list at the CKP UserCenter

CheckPoint_R77

Le pacte des loups

Posted: September 19, 2013 in media-culture
Tags: , ,

I’ve recently watched this movie again. 2001 – French, with Vincent Cassel (Monica Bellucci‘s husband) and, as somebody was saying on a forum,: Monica fucking Bellucci is in this movie !!! and Mark Dacascos. Filmed (partially) in Château de Roquetaillade, and following the legend of the beast of Gévaudan, this movie has a well-calibrated complex of intrigue, historical events, action, horror, fight and love.

The fr.wiki describes it – and also the en.wiki. IMDB rates it with 7.0. I personally liked it very much, though my fav actor and martial artist was bound to die quite quickly, while showing off some of his Wun Hop Kuen Do moves.

Trailer

nice best scenes

Mark Dacascos fighting scenes

Mani’s tattoos