Trigger PFCP Assoc. Setup Request from SMF When Receiving Sess. Est. Request from Unassociated SMF #540
Replies: 4 comments 2 replies
-
Hi Howard @howardswe499, Could you please try eUPF based on branch mentioned in #539? This issue is nearly to be released, but in order not to wait release you are welcome to try current development branch. -- BR, Alex |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @pirog-spb , On branch #539 , when eUPF received a Session Establishment Request, its response included Node ID field, which seems to trigger Association Setup Request from SMF, resulting in successful re-association. However, SMF seems to send a Session Deletion Request before sending an Establishment Request, to which eUPF responds with a failure due to no Assocation, of which results in failed PDU session establishment and skipping of 1 IP from IP pool as a result of the failed PDU session establishment. UERANSIM Log
Here are the logs from my testing. Core signaling pcap/further testing can be provided on request. Logs
Cheers |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @howardswe499, Thank you for the detailed feedback. I fixed NodeID in Session Modification and Session Deletion messages. Now this field should be in every session message from eUPF. Please try it on #539 branch. -- BR, Alex |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @pirog-spb , Sorry for the late reply. So, the fix on commit As seen in logs, UE was still assigned IP address that skipped 1 value. Logs
However, after thinking about it, I think the IP being skipped isn't actually caused by Session Deletion Request not triggering Association, but is rather due to the 1st Session Establishment Request being rejected. My apologies for the confusion caused! Cheers, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi All,
I've been having a minor inconvenience with multiple UPFs, where if an association has already been established with the SMF (Nokia CMU in my case), and then the UPF is closed (either accidentally or intentionally), upon restarting the UPF I have to restart the SMF as well to trigger a PFCP Association Setup Request from SMF, otherwise the UPF will not be associated and thus cannot be selected to act as the UPF for the PDU Session.
Example Log output of this happening:
I was testing around with other UPFs for my integration project, when I stumbled upon OAI-VPP-UPF and to my surprise, when faced with the same scenario, OAI-UPF was able to force the SMF to re-associate with it. I compared eUPF vs OAI-UPF's PFCP signaling, and noticed that OAI-UPF had extra fields of "Node ID" and "Error Report" in its PFCP Session Establishment Response. Perhaps this is what is triggering the SMF to re-associate?
eUPF PFCP Session Establishment Reply
OAI-UPF PFCP Session Establishment Reply
Best Regards,
Howard
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions