Message-ID: <MW4PR11MB5776AB46BC5702BD0120A7C3FD0B9@MW4PR11MB5776.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 15:24:07 +0000
From:   "Drewek, Wojciech" <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
To:     Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com" 
        <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: PFCP support in kernel

Hi Harald,

Thx for your reply!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
> Sent: środa, 9 marca 2022 19:16
> To: Drewek, Wojciech <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com; Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
> Subject: Re: PFCP support in kernel
> 
> Hi Wojciech,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:27:01PM +0000, Drewek, Wojciech wrote:
> > First of all I want to thank you for your revision of our GTP changes,
> > we've learned a lot from your comments.
> 
> Happy to help!
> 
> > So, as you may know our changes were focused around implementing offload of GTP traffic.
> 
> Of course, that was what the kernel GTP driver always was about.
> Unfortunately it didn't receive a lot of love from the telecom industry,
> and hence it is stuck in "2G/3G land", i.e. at a time before the EPS
> with its dedicated bearers.  So you cannot use it for IMS/VoLTE, for
> example, as it can only match on the source IP address and doesn't have
> the capability of using packet classification to put packets in
> different tunnels based on [inner IP] port numbers, etc.
> 
> > We wanted to introduce a consistent solution so we followed the approach used for geneve/vxlan.
> > In general this approach looks like that:
> > - create tunnel device (geneve/vxlan/GTP)
> > - use that device in tc filter command
> > - based on the type of the device used in tc filter, our driver knows what traffic should be offloaded
> 
> I'm sorry, I have very limited insight into geneve/vxlan.  It may
> be of interest to you that within Osmocom we are currently implementing
> a UPF that uses nftables as the backend.  The UPF runs in userspace,
> handles a minimal subset of PFCP (no qos/shaping, for example), and then
> installs rules into nftables to perform packet matching and
> manipulation.  Contrary to the old kernel GTP driver, this approach is
> more flexible as it can also cover the TEID mapping case which you find
> at SGSN/S-GW or in roaming hubs.  We currently are just about to
> complete a prof-of-concept of that.

That's interesting, I have two questions:
- is it going to be possible to math packets based on SEID?
- any options for offloading this nftables  filters to the hardware?
> 
> > Going to the point, now we want to do the same with PFCP.
> > The question is: does it even make sense to create PFCP device and
> > parse PFCP messages in kernel space?
> 
> I don't think so.  IMHO, PFCP is a rather complex prootocol and it
> should be handled in a userspace program, and that userspace program can
> then install whatever kernel configuration - whether you want to use
> nftables, or tc, or ebpf, or whatever other old or new subsystem in the
> kernel network stack.

Ok, we will then rethink our approach in this matter.
> 
> > My understanding is that PFCP is some kind of equivalent of GTP-C and since GTP-C was purposely not
> > implemented in the kernel I feel like PFCP wouldn't fit there either.
> 
> I'm sorry, but PFCP is not a replacement of GTP-C.  It serves a rather
> different purpose, i.e. to act as protocol between control and user
> plane.  GTP-C is control plane, GTP-U is user plane.  PFCP is used in
> between the control and user plane entities to configure the user plane.
> It's purpose is primarily to be able to mix and match control plane
> implementations with user plane implementations. - and to be able to
> reuse the same user plane implementation from multiple different network
> elements,  like SGW, PGW, HNBGW, roaming hubs, ...

Sorry for my lack of knowledge and thanks for explanation.
> 
> On an abstract / architectural level, PFCP can be compared a bit to
> NETLINK:  A protocol between the control plane (linux userspace, routing
> daemons, etc.) and the data plane (kernel network stack).
> 
> Not sure if there is anything new in it for you, but a while ago in the
> osmocom developer call covered CUPS, see the following video recording:
> https://media.ccc.de/v/osmodevcall-20211125-laforge-cups-pfcp
> 
> > Lastly, if you are wrong person to ask such question then I'm sorry.
> > Maybe you know someone else who could help us?
> 
> I'm a bit overloaded, but happy to help as far as time permits.
> 
> Regards,
> 	Harald
> 
> --
> - Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
> ============================================================================
> "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
>                                                   (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

Regards,
Wojtek

Powered by blists - more mailing lists