-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
No retry of PFCP association to UPF after first failed try #221
Comments
Configuring VRFs on the default node that are not supported by all UPF instance is a broken config. The node config does indeed configure full nodes only and the configuration has to match what the nodes support. The name We could add a |
@RoadRunnr "After reconfiguring the upf, restarting it: ergw would not trigger a single PFCP association request to the upf" … was the actual question. since ergw:2.8.x was active back then and now ergw:3.1.x is current: is the behaviour of ergw such that after a upg-node was tried to associated with, then failed in the case of vrf-mismatch – is ergw:3.1.x reconsidering the upg-instance after $time on its own? |
It is important to note that the failed session setup was for the CP-to-UP forwarding session and rules that is installed by the ergw_sx_node. |
Description
In a GTP-Proxy setup with real DNS based node selection it was observed, that after selecting a configured upf the PFCP association (or more specific) the "FAR installation procedure" did not succeed.
ergw was configured potentially have
cp
,epc1
,epc2
,access1
andaccess2
as NWIs while the selected *upf was configured to supportcp
,epc1
,epc2
andaccess1
.access2
was not supported.The installation of the FARs after the successfull PFCP association request failed (because upf did not support a NWI required by ergw).
After reconfiguring the upf, restarting it: ergw would not trigger a single PFCP association request to the upf
Side question: ergw wants to install FARs for all available NWIs in the node section. At the same time, the socket-configuration for a access-side socket states it will use only one specific NWI. This is by design? Because ergw can't know upon PFCP establishment which of the NWIs will be used later on?
Relevant configurations
ergw
upf
Versions:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: