Feature/implicit deregistration #107
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ | ||
| package httpcallback | ||
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "net/http" | ||
|
|
||
| "github.com/gin-gonic/gin" | ||
|
|
||
| amf_context "github.com/free5gc/amf/internal/context" | ||
| "github.com/free5gc/amf/internal/logger" | ||
| "github.com/free5gc/amf/internal/sbi/consumer" | ||
| "github.com/free5gc/openapi" | ||
| "github.com/free5gc/openapi/models" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| func HTTPHandleDeregistrationNotification(c *gin.Context) { | ||
| // TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2 - step 14d | ||
| logger.CallbackLog.Infoln("Handle Deregistration Notification") | ||
|
|
||
| var deregData models.DeregistrationData | ||
|
|
||
| requestBody, err := c.GetRawData() | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| logger.CallbackLog.Errorf("Get Request Body error: %+v", err) | ||
| problemDetails := models.ProblemDetails{ | ||
| Title: "System failure", | ||
| Status: http.StatusInternalServerError, | ||
| Detail: err.Error(), | ||
| Cause: "SYSTEM_FAILURE", | ||
| } | ||
| c.JSON(http.StatusInternalServerError, problemDetails) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| err = openapi.Deserialize(&deregData, requestBody, "application/json") | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| problemDetails := models.ProblemDetails{ | ||
| Title: "Malformed request syntax", | ||
| Status: http.StatusBadRequest, | ||
| Detail: "[Request Body] " + err.Error(), | ||
| } | ||
| logger.CallbackLog.Errorln(problemDetails.Detail) | ||
| c.JSON(http.StatusBadRequest, problemDetails) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| ueid := c.Param("ueid") | ||
| ue, ok := amf_context.GetSelf().AmfUeFindByUeContextID(ueid) | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| logger.CallbackLog.Errorf("AmfUe Context[%s] not found", ueid) | ||
| problemDetails := models.ProblemDetails{ | ||
| Status: http.StatusNotFound, | ||
| Cause: "CONTEXT_NOT_FOUND", | ||
| } | ||
| c.JSON(http.StatusNotFound, problemDetails) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| problemDetails, err := DeregistrationNotificationProcedure(ue, deregData) | ||
| if problemDetails != nil { | ||
| ue.GmmLog.Errorf("Deregistration Notification Procedure Failed Problem[%+v]", problemDetails) | ||
| } else if err != nil { | ||
| ue.GmmLog.Errorf("Deregistration Notification Procedure Error[%v]", err.Error()) | ||
| } | ||
| // TS 23.503 - 5.3.2.3.2 UDM initiated NF Deregistration | ||
| // The AMF acknowledges the Nudm_UECM_DeRegistrationNotification to the UDM. | ||
| c.JSON(http.StatusNoContent, nil) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.3.3 Network-initiated Deregistration | ||
| // The AMF can initiate this procedure for either explicit (e.g. by O&M intervention) or | ||
| // implicit (e.g. expiring of Implicit Deregistration timer) | ||
| func DeregistrationNotificationProcedure(ue *amf_context.AmfUe, deregData models.DeregistrationData) ( | ||
| problemDetails *models.ProblemDetails, err error, | ||
| ) { | ||
| // The AMF does not send the Deregistration Request message to the UE for Implicit Deregistration. | ||
| switch deregData.DeregReason { | ||
| case models.DeregistrationReason_UE_INITIAL_REGISTRATION: | ||
| // TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2 General Registration | ||
| // Invokes the Nsmf_PDUSession_ReleaseSMContext for the corresponding access type | ||
| ue.SmContextList.Range(func(key, value interface{}) bool { | ||
| smContext := value.(*amf_context.SmContext) | ||
| if smContext.AccessType() == deregData.AccessType { | ||
| problemDetails, err = consumer.SendReleaseSmContextRequest(ue, smContext, nil, "", nil) | ||
| if problemDetails != nil { | ||
| ue.GmmLog.Errorf("Release SmContext Failed Problem[%+v]", problemDetails) | ||
| } else if err != nil { | ||
| ue.GmmLog.Errorf("Release SmContext Error[%v]", err.Error()) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| return true | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
| // TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2 General Registration - 14e | ||
| // TODO: (R16) If old AMF does not have UE context for another access type (i.e. non-3GPP access), | ||
| // the Old AMF unsubscribes with the UDM for subscription data using Nudm_SDM_unsubscribe | ||
| if ue.SdmSubscriptionId != "" { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. @ianchen0119 check udm implementation to make sure old amf will not unsubscribe new amf's subscription |
||
| problemDetails, err = consumer.SDMUnsubscribe(ue) | ||
| if problemDetails != nil { | ||
| logger.GmmLog.Errorf("SDM Unubscribe Failed Problem[%+v]", problemDetails) | ||
| } else if err != nil { | ||
| logger.GmmLog.Errorf("SDM Unubscribe Error[%+v]", err) | ||
| } | ||
| ue.SdmSubscriptionId = "" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2 General Registration - 20 AMF-Initiated Policy Association Termination | ||
| // For UE_INITIAL_REGISTRATION and SUBSCRIPTION_WITHDRAW, do AMF-Initiated Policy Association Termination directly. | ||
| if ue.PolicyAssociationId != "" { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. @ianchen0119 check pcf implementation to make sure old amf will not unsubscribe new amf's ampolicy association |
||
| // TODO: For REGISTRATION_AREA_CHANGE, old AMF performs an AMF-initiated Policy Association Termination | ||
| // procedure if the old AMF has established an AM Policy Association and a UE Policy Association with the PCF(s) | ||
| // and the old AMF did not transfer the PCF ID(s) to the new AMF. (Ref: TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2) | ||
| // Currently, old AMF will transfer the PCF ID but new AMF will not utilize the PCF ID | ||
| problemDetails, err := consumer.AMPolicyControlDelete(ue) | ||
| if problemDetails != nil { | ||
| logger.GmmLog.Errorf("Delete AM policy Failed Problem[%+v]", problemDetails) | ||
| } else if err != nil { | ||
| logger.GmmLog.Errorf("Delete AM policy Error[%+v]", err) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Original RemoveAmfUe at dereg when notifyNf is true also considers AMPolicyControlDelete. Should AMPolicyControlDelete be included here according to TS 23.502 4.2.2.2.2 14d? There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't find the description in R15 - TS 23.502 - 4.2.2.2.2 - 14d and I am not sure if we need to delete AmPolicy here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Sorry, I think that's step 20. in R15.
There was a problem hiding this comment. For UE_INITIAL_REGISTRATION and SUBSCRIPTION_WITHDRAW, it is fine to do AMF-Initiated Policy Association Termination directly. However, if it is REGISTRATION_AREA_CHANGE, it is possible that the new AMF reuses the associated PCF ID, which hence should not be terminated.
R16 has clearer instructions:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with that, however, free5GC currently doesn't utilize the PCF ID to select the PCF, therefore, I leave the TODO comments for it. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think it is fine to leave for a new PR. Lastly, please help to change the TODO comments ( |
||
|
|
||
| // The old AMF should clean the UE context | ||
| // TODO: (R16) Only remove the target access UE context | ||
| ue.Remove() | ||
|
|
||
| return nil, nil | ||
| } | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SendReleaseSmContextRequest()needs to read the attribute of theue, it will occur the concurrent read/write if another ngap/nas message for the same ue is sent to AMF.Please help to check do we need a mutex lock here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moreover, it seems like the behavior of AMF in this case is the same with
gmm_common.RemoveAmfUe(amfUe, false).@iamelisahi @YouShengLiu
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SendReleaseSmContextRequest()will only use the ue.TimeZone and smContext.Since the smContext is stored in ue.SmContextList and protected under the sync.Map, we can leave it alone.
However, the ue.TimeZone is not protected, it may need mutex lock to protect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it is very similar but there are still some differences.
According to the TS 29.503 - Table 6.2.6.2.7-1: Definition of type Amf3GppAccessRegistrationModification - backupAmfInfo:
We think we should provide the BackupAmfInfo but the
UeCmDeregistration()didn't.Should we need to modify
UeCmDeregistration(), e.g. add one more parameter to decide if it needs to put the BackupAmfInfo into Amf3GppAccessRegistrationModification?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@YouShengLiu
Is it possible to reuse the duplicated part?
I think you are right, please help to fill the BackupAmfInfo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does spec mention to use old amf as the backup amf? I think it's strange to notify UDM that the backup amf of e.g. amf1 is amf1 itself😂 Backup AMF may be a pre-config field to this AMF's config in my opnion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Spec didn't mention using old AMF as the backup AMF directly. I was thinking that the old AMF could be one of the backup AMFs when the new AMF is serving the UE.
I checked the data stored in the database, the serving AMF was the new AMF, and the old AMF became the backup AMF:
{ "_id": { "$oid": "650059c26b8b38f7f8ab93dc" }, "ueId": "imsi-2089300007487", "amfInstanceId": "faf609ad-2cbd-4082-bf41-7a554e4aa626", "imsVoPs": "HOMOGENEOUS_NON_SUPPORT", "deregCallbackUri": "http://127.0.0.19:8000/namf-callback/v1/amf-implicit-deregistration/imsi-2089300007487", "initialRegistrationInd": true, "guami": { "amfId": "cafe01", "plmnId": { "mcc": "208", "mnc": "93" } }, "ratType": "", "backupAmfInfo": [ { "backupAmf": "AMF", "guamiList": [ { "amfId": "cafe00", "plmnId": { "mcc": "208", "mnc": "93" } } ] } ], "purgeFlag": true }I agree that using pre-config is a better solution.