Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
NETEXT WG S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track X. Zhou
Expires: August 28, 2013 ZTE Corporation
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
G. Feige
R. Koodli
Cisco
February 24, 2013
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-12.txt
Abstract
This specification defines a new mobility option, IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option, for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This option can be
used by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for
negotiating IPv4 traffic offload policy for a mobility session.
Based on the negotiated IPv4 traffic offload policy, a mobile access
gateway can selectively offload some of the IPv4 traffic flows in the
access network instead of tunneling back to the local mobility anchor
in the home network.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. MAG Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. LMA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Protocol Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
1. Introduction
Mobile Operators are expanding their network coverage by integrating
various access technology domains (Ex: Wireless LAN, CDMA, LTE) into
a common IP mobility core. The 3GPP S2a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [TS23402]
reference point, specified by the 3GPP system architecture defines
the protocol inter-working for building such integrated multi-access
network. In this scenario, the mobile node's IP traffic is always
tunneled back from the mobile access gateway [RFC5213] in the access
network to the local mobility anchor in the home network. Currently,
there is no mechanism for allowing some of the subscriber's IP flows
to be offloaded in the access network.
With the exponential growth in the mobile data traffic, mobile
operators are exploring new ways to offload some of the IP traffic
flows at the nearest access edge. The offload is intended either for
local service access in the access network, or for internet offload
through the access network when there is an internet peering point.
Not all IP traffic flows needs to be routed back to the home network,
some of the non-essential traffic which does not require IP mobility
support can be offloaded at the mobile access gateway in the access
network. This approach allows efficient usage of the mobile packet
core which helps in lowering transport costs. The local mobility
anchor in the home network can deliver the IP flow policy to the
mobile access gateway in the access network, for identifying the IP
flows that need to be offloaded. It's a policy decision as to which
traffic an operator deems as non-essential. One operator might
choose to offload everything except traffic (such as Voice over IP)
that requires QoS services. Another might choose to offload only
HTTP traffic. From the point of view of this specification, it is
only about IP traffic matching a given flow selector and
classification for offload. This approach has one limitation with
respect to identifying encrypted traffic: IPsec encrypted traffic
with no visibility into the application payload cannot be selected
for offload.
This document defines a new mobility option, IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option (Section 3.1) for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). This
option can be used by the local mobility anchor for delivering the
IPv4 traffic offload policy associated with a mobility session to the
mobile access gateway. This IPv4 traffic offload policy identifies
the flow selectors that can used for selecting the flows for
offloading them at the access edge. Since, the mobile node's IP
address topologically belongs to the home network, the offloaded IPv4
traffic flows may need to be NAT [RFC2663] translated. These
offloaded flows will not have mobility support as the NAT becomes the
anchor point for those flows. However, when the traffic is offloaded
for local service access as opposed to internet offload, NAT
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
translation may not be needed, if the mobile access gateways is in
path for the return traffic. The decision on when to apply NAT
translation can be based on local configuration on the mobile access
gateway. There are better ways to address the offload problem for
IPv6 and with the goal not to create NAT66 requirement, this
specification therefore does not support traffic offload support for
IPv6 flows.
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
interpreted as defined in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications
[RFC5213] and [RFC5844]. Additionally, this document uses the
following terms:
IP Flow
IP Flow [RFC5101] represents a set of IP packets that match a
traffic selector. The selector is typically based on the source
IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination port
and other fields in upper layer headers.
IP Traffic Offload
The approach of selecting specific IP flows and routing them
through the access network, instead of tunneling them to the home
network. Offload can also be between two access networks
(Example: moving some of the traffic from LTE access to WLAN
access).
3. Solution Overview
Figure 1 illustrates the scenario where the mobile access gateway in
an access network has enabled IPv4 traffic offload support for a
mobility session. The offload decision is based on the IPv4 traffic
offload policy that it negotiated with the local mobility anchor in
the home network. For example, all the HTTP flows may be offloaded
at the mobile access gateway and all the other flows for that
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
mobility session are tunneled back to the local mobility anchor. The
offloaded flows have to be typically NAT translated and this
specification does not impose any restrictions on the location of the
NAT function. It is possible for the NAT function to be co-located
with the mobile access gateway or located somewhere in the edge of
the access network. When the NAT function is not co-located with the
mobile access gateway, offloaded traffic flows must be delivered
through the local access network between the mobile access gateway
and the NAT function, for example through a VLAN or a point-to-point
link. The exact means for this delivery are outside the scope of
this document. If the offloaded IPv4 flows are for local service
access and reverse traffic from the local service device can be
routed to the mobile node through the mobile access gateway, the
offloaded flows may be delivered directly to local service device.
The traffic selectors in the IPv4 traffic offload policy are used to
classify the traffic, so it can be offloaded to the access network.
These parameters include Source IP address, Destination IP address,
TCP/UDP Port numbers, and other fields. The format of the IPv4
Binary Traffic Selector is specified in section 3.1 of [RFC6088].
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
_----_
_( )_
:-----------------( Internet )---------------:
| (_ _) |
| '----' |
| |
: |
(IPv4 Traffic Offload Point) |
: |
| |
........................................................|....
| | |
+--------+ | +---------------------+ |
| Local | | | Services requiring | |
|Services| | | mobility, or service| |
+--------+ | | treatment | |
| | +---------------------+ |
| +---+ | |
| |NAT| | |
| +---+ | |
+-----| _----_ | |
+-----+ _( )_ +-----+ |
[MN]----| MAG |======( IP )======| LMA |----------
+-----+ (_ _) +-----+ Internet
'----'
.
.
[Access Network] . [Home Network]
..........................................................
Figure 1: IPv4 Traffic Offload Support at the MAG
Figure 2 explains the operational sequence of the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol signaling message exchange between the mobile access gateway
and the local mobility anchor for negotiating the IPv4 Traffic
Offload selectors. The details related to DHCP transactions, or
Router Advertisements on the access link are not shown here as that
is not the key focus of this specification. The use of IPv4 Traffic
Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update is for allowing the MAG
to request the LMA for the IPv4 Traffic Offload policy.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
MN MAG(NAT) LMA
|------>| | 1. Mobile Node Attach
| |------->| 2. Proxy Binding Update (IPv4TS)
| |<-------| 3. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (IPv4TS)
| |========| 4. Tunnel/Route Setup
| + | 5. Installing the traffic offload rules
|------>| | 6. IPv4 packet from mobile node
| + | 7. Offload rule applied (Tunnel/offload)
| | |
Figure 2: Exchange of IPv4 Traffic Offload Selectors
3.1. IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option
A new mobility option, IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option, is
defined for using it in Proxy Binding Update (PBU) and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement (PBA) messages exchanged between a mobile access
gateway and a local mobility anchor. This option is used for
carrying the IPv4 traffic offload policy. This policy identifies the
IPv4 traffic flow selectors that can be used by the mobile access
gateway for enforcing the offload policy.
The alignment requirement for this option is 4n.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Selector Sub-option ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option
Type
<IANA-1>
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the
option, excluding the type and length fields.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
Offload Mode (M) Flag
This field indicates the offload mode.
If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (0), it is an
indication that the IPv4 flow(s) matching the traffic selectors
in the Traffic Selector sub-option [RFC6089] and that are
associated to that mobility session have to be offloaded at the
mobile access gateway. All the other IPv4 flows associated
with that mobility session and not matching the traffic
selectors have to be tunneled to the local mobility anchor.
If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it is an
indication that all the IPv4 flows associated to that mobility
session except the IPv4 flow(s) matching the traffic selectors
in the Traffic Selector sub-option have to be offloaded at the
mobile access gateway. All the IPv4 flows associated with that
mobility session and matching the traffic selectors have to be
tunneled back to the local mobility anchor.
Reserved
This field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to 0
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Traffic Selector Sub-option
The traffic selector sub-option includes the parameters used to
match packets for a specific flow binding. This is an optional
sub-option when the IPv4 Traffic Selector option is carried in a
Proxy Binding Update message, but is a mandatory sub-option when
the IPv4 Traffic Selector option is carried in a Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement message. The format of the Traffic Selector sub-
option is defined in section 4.2.1.4 of [RFC6089]. This sub-
option includes a TS Format field, which identifies the format of
the flow specification included in that sub-option. The values
for that field are defined in section 3 of [RFC6088] and are
repeated here for completeness. When the value of TS Format field
is set to (1), the format that follows is the IPv4 Binary Traffic
Selector specified in section 3.1 of [RFC6088] and that support is
mandatory for this specification. The text specified in this
section takes precedence over what is specified in [RFC6088] and
[RFC6089].
1: IPv4 binary traffic selector.
2: IPv6 binary traffic selector (Not used by this
specification)
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
3.2. MAG Considerations
o If the mobile access gateway is configured to support IPv4 Traffic
Offload support, then it includes the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option (Section 3.1) in the Proxy Binding Update message
that it sends to the local mobility anchor. Optionally, the
mobile access gateway can also propose a specific offload policy.
* The mobile access gateway MAY choose not to propose any
specific IPv4 traffic offload policy but request the local
mobility anchor for the offload policy. In this scenario, the
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option that is carried in the
Proxy Binding Update message does not include the Traffic
Selector sub-option (Section 3.1) and the (M) flag Section 3.1
in the option MUST be set to value of (0). Including the IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update
without the Traffic Selector Sub-option serves as an indication
that the mobile access gateway is not proposing any specific
offload policy for that mobility session, but rather it makes a
request to the local mobility anchor to provide the offload
policy.
* The mobile access gateway MAY choose to propose a specific IPv4
traffic offload policy by including the Traffic Selector sub-
option in the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option Section 3.1.
The specific details on how the mobile access gateway obtains
the mobile node's IPv4 traffic offload policy, is outside the
scope of this document. When this offload policy is included
in the Proxy Binding Update message, it serves as a proposal to
the local mobility anchor, which the local mobility anchor can
override with its own offload policy, or agree to the proposed
policy. The offload policy has to be translated to a set of
selectors that can be used to match the mobile node's IP flows
and these selectors have to be carried in the Traffic Selector
Sub-option. The Traffic Selector sub-option MUST be
constructed as specified section 4.2.1.4 of [RFC6089]. This
sub-option includes a Traffic Selector Format field, which
identifies the format of the flow specification included in
that sub-option. The values for that field and the
corresponding message format are defined in section 3.0 of
[RFC6088]. Considerations from Section 3.1 apply with respect
to setting the Offload Mode (M) flag.
o When sending a Proxy Binding Update either for Binding lifetime
extension, or for Binding De-Registration, the mobile access
gateway SHOULD copy the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option from
the initial Proxy Binding Update message. Considerations from
section 6.9.1.3 [RFC5213] and section 6.9.1.4 [RFC5213] MUST be
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
applied.
o If the mobile access gateway is not configured to support IPv4
traffic offload support as specified in this specification, but if
the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message has the IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option, then the mobile access gateway
MUST ignore the option and process the rest of the message as per
[RFC5213].
o If there is no IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy
Binding Acknowledgement message received from the local mobility
anchor, it is indication that the local mobility anchor did not
enable IPv4 Traffic Offload support for that mobility session.
The mobile access gateway upon accepting the Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement message SHOULD NOT enable IPv4 traffic offload
support for that mobility session.
o If there is an IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy
Binding Acknowledgement message, then the mobile access gateway
SHOULD enable the IPv4 traffic offload support for that mobility
session. The mobility access gateway has to provision the data
plane using the flow selectors present in the Traffic Selector
Sub-option. The IPv4 flows matching the flow selectors have to be
offloaded, or tunneled back based to the local mobility anchor
based on the value of the Offload Mode (M) flag Section 3.1.
3.3. LMA Considerations
o If the received Proxy Binding Update message does not include the
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (Section 3.1), then the local
mobility anchor MUST NOT enable IPv4 Traffic Offload support for
that mobility session and the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
message that will be sent in response MUST NOT contain the IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option.
o If the Proxy Binding Update message includes the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option, but the local mobility anchor is not
configured to support IPv4 Traffic Offload support, then the local
mobility anchor will ignore the option and process the rest of the
message as per [RFC5213]. This would have no effect on the
operation of the rest of the protocol.
o If the Proxy Binding Update message has the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option and if the local mobility anchor is configured to
support IPv4 Traffic Offload support, then the local mobility
anchor MUST enable IPv4 Traffic Offload support for that mobility
session. The Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message that will be
sent in response MUST include the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
option. The following considerations apply with respect to
constructing the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option.
* The local mobility anchor can obtain the offload policy from
the local configuration store, or from a network function such
as from AAA (Authentication, Authorization and Accounting), or
PCRF (Policy Charging and Rules Function)). The offload policy
has to be translated to a set of selectors that can be used to
match the mobile node's IP flows and these selectors have to be
carried in the Traffic Selector Sub-option. The Traffic
Selection Sub-option MUST be constructed as specified in
section 4.2.1.4 of [RFC6089]. Considerations from Section 3.1
apply with respect to Offload Mode Flag (M) setting.
* If the Proxy Binding Update message includes a specific IPv4
Traffic Offload policy proposal in the form of Traffic Selector
Sub-option [RFC6089], then the local mobility anchor MAY choose
to agree to that request by including the same IPv4 Traffic
Offload policy in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
This implies the local mobility anchor has agreed to the mobile
access gateway provided IPv4 Traffic Offload policy. The local
mobility anchor MAY also choose to override the request by
including a different IPv4 Traffic Offload policy that it wants
the mobile access gateway to enforce for that mobility session.
This is entirely based on the policy configuration on the local
mobility anchor.
* The IPv4 traffic offload policy that is sent to the mobile
access gateway has to be specific to the mobility session
identified using the Mobile Node Identifier option [RFC5213].
The offload policy MUST be specific to a mobile node's
application traffic. The traffic selectors have to match only
the mobile node's application traffic and MUST NOT match any
other mobile node's IP traffic. Furthermore, control plane
traffic such as DHCP, ND or any other IP traffic that is used
for IP address configuration, mobility management or for other
control plane functions has to be excluded.
* The local mobility anchor MUST NOT make any changes to the
mobile node's offload policy during the middle of a mobility
session, as that might break some of the IP sessions.
Therefore the IPv4 Traffic Selector option with the Traffic
Selector sub-option that is delivered during the initial
mobility signaling signaling MUST be the same as the one that
is delivered as part of the mobility signaling related to
lifetime extension.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
4. Protocol Configuration Variables
This specification defines the following configuration variable that
controls the IPv4 Traffic Offload support feature. This
configuration variable is internal to the system and has no bearing
on interoperability across different implementations.
The mobility entities, local mobility anchor and the mobile access
gateway have to allow these variables to be configured by the system
management. The configured values for these protocol variables have
to survive server reboots and service restarts.
EnableIPv4TrafficOffloadSupport
This flag indicates whether or not IPv4 Traffic Offload support
needs to be enabled. This configuration variable is available
at both in the mobile access gateway and at the local mobility
anchor. The default value for this flag is set to (0),
indicating that the support for IPv4 Traffic offload support is
disabled.
When this flag on the mobile access gateway is set to a value
of (1), the mobile access gateway has to enable the IPv4
Traffic offload support for all mobility sessions, specifically
request the IPv4 traffic offload policy from the local mobility
anchor by including the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in
the Proxy Binding Update message. If the flag is set to a
value of (0), the mobile access gateway has to disable support
for IPv4 Traffic Offload support for all mobility sessions.
Similarly, when this flag on the local mobility anchor is set
to a value of (1), the local mobility anchor has to enable
support for IPv4 Traffic offload support. When the local
mobility anchor chooses to enable IPv4 Traffic offload support
and if there is offload policy specified for a mobile node, it
has to deliver the IPv4 traffic offload policy to the mobile
access gateway by including the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector
option in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA action.
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option. This option is described in
Section 3.1. The Type value for this option needs to be assigned
from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
options [RFC6275].
o RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4 with the assigned
value, and update this section accordingly.
6. Security Considerations
The IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option defined in this
specification is for use in Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement messages. This option is carried like any other
mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore it
inherits from [RFC5213] its security guidelines and does not require
any additional security considerations. Carrying IPv4 traffic
offload selectors does not introduce any new security
vulnerabilities.
When IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled for a mobile node, the
mobile access gateway selectively offloads some of the mobile node's
IPv4 traffic flows to the access network. Typically, these offloaded
flows get NAT translated and essentially that introduces certain
vulnerabilities which are common to any NAT deployment. These
vulnerabilities and the related considerations have been well
documented in the NAT specification [RFC2663]. There are no
additional considerations above and beyond what has already been
documented by the NAT specifications and which are unique to the
approach specified in this document.
The mobile node's home network may be equipped with firewall and
other security devices to guard against any security threats. When
IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled, it potentially exposes the
mobile node to some security risks in the access network. This
threat can be mitigated by deploying the security features in the
access network as in the home network.
When IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled for a mobile node, some
of the IP flows are sent through the home network and some other IP
flows are routed through the access network. This potentially
introduces some complexity with respect to enabling diagnostics or
monitoring on the user traffic. The tools that are used for such
diagnostics have to be aware of the offload policy that in enabled in
the network.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ahmad Muhanna, Basavaraj Patil,
Carlos Bernardos, Eric Voit, Frank Brockners, Hidetoshi Yokota, Marco
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
Liebsch, Mark Grayson, Pierrick Seite, Ryuji Wakikawa, Steve Wood,
Barry Lieba, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick, Wesley Eddy, Mary Barnes,
Vincent Roca, Ralph Droms, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell, Adrian
Farrell, Benoit Claise and Brian Haberman for all the draft reviews
and discussions related to the topic of IPv4 traffic offload.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
January 2011.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
January 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[TS23402] 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
2010.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option February 2013
Authors' Addresses
Sri Gundavelli (editor)
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Xingyue Zhou
ZTE Corporation
No.68 Zijinghua Rd
Nanjing
China
Email: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo FIN-02600
Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Gaetan
Cisco
France
Email: gfeige@cisco.com
Rajeev Koodli
Cisco
3650 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: rkoodli@cisco.com
Gundavelli, et al. Expires August 28, 2013 [Page 15]
