rfc6909
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6909 Cisco
Category: Standards Track X. Zhou
ISSN: 2070-1721 ZTE Corporation
J. Korhonen
Renesas Mobile
G. Feige
R. Koodli
Cisco
April 2013
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
Abstract
This specification defines a new mobility option, the 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6909.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 ....................................................2
2. Conventions and Terminology .....................................4
2.1. Conventions ................................................4
2.2. Terminology ................................................4
3. Solution Overview ...............................................4
3.1. IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option .......................6
3.2. MAG Considerations .........................................8
3.3. LMA Considerations .........................................9
4. Protocol Configuration Variables ...............................11
5. IANA Considerations ............................................11
6. Security Considerations ........................................12
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
8. References .....................................................13
8.1. Normative References ......................................13
8.2. Informative References ....................................13
1. Introduction
Mobile operators are expanding their network coverage by integrating
various access technology domains (e.g., Wireless LAN, CDMA, and
Long-Term Evolution (LTE)) into a common IP mobility core. The Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) S2a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [TS23402]
reference point, specified by the 3GPP system architecture, defines
the protocol interworking for building such integrated multi-access
networks. 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.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
With the exponential growth in 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 need to be routed back to the home network; the
traffic that 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. To identify the IP flows that need to be
offloaded, the local mobility anchor in the home network can deliver
the IP flow policy to the mobile access gateway in the access
network. It is up to an operator's discretion to classify the
traffic for offload. 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. This
specification is only concerned with matching IP traffic against a
given flow selector and classification of IP traffic for offloading
purposes. 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, the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option (see Section 3.1), for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6).
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. This IPv4 traffic offload policy identifies the
flow selectors that can be used for selecting the flows that can be
offloaded 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 translation may
not be needed if the mobile access gateway is in the 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 a NAT66 requirement, this specification therefore
does not address traffic offload support for IPv6 flows.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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] [RFC5844]. Additionally, this document uses the following
terms:
IP Flow
IP flow [RFC5101] represents a set of IP packets that match a
traffic selector (TS). 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
IP traffic offload is 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 (e.g., 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
mobility session are tunneled back to the local mobility anchor. The
offloaded flows typically have to be 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 at 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
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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 a local service device.
The traffic selectors in the IPv4 traffic offload policy are used to
classify the traffic, so it can be offloaded at 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].
_----_
_( )_
:-----------------( 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
(MAG) and the local mobility anchor (LMA) 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
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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.
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, the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (53),
is defined for use 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
53
Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the
option, excluding the type and length fields.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 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) that match 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 the 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. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
3.2. MAG Considerations
o If the mobile access gateway is configured to enable 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 (see Section 3.1), and the (M) flag (see
Section 3.1) in the option MUST be set to a 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 (see
Section 3.1). The specific details on how the mobile access
gateway obtains the mobile node's IPv4 traffic offload policy
are 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. The local
mobility anchor can override with its own offload policy, or it
can 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 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 the
sub-option. The values for that field and the corresponding
message format are defined in Section 3.1 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
Sections 6.9.1.3 and 6.9.1.4 of [RFC5213] MUST be applied.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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 an indication that the local mobility anchor did not
enable IPv4 traffic offload support for that mobility session.
Upon accepting the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, the
mobile access gateway 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 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 (see 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
option. The following considerations apply with respect to
constructing the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
* The local mobility anchor can obtain the offload policy from
the local configuration store or from a network function such
as AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) or PCRF
(Policy and Charging Rule 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
Selector sub-option MUST be constructed as specified in Section
4.2.1.4 of [RFC6089]. Considerations from Section 3.1 apply
with respect to the Offload Mode (M) flag setting.
* If the Proxy Binding Update message includes a specific IPv4
traffic offload policy proposal in the form of the 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 IPv4 traffic offload policy provided by the mobile access
gateway. 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, Neighbor Discovery (ND), or any other IP
traffic that is used for IP address configuration, mobility
management, or other control-plane functions MUST NOT be
subject to offload.
* The local mobility anchor MUST NOT make any changes to the
mobile node's offload policy during the middle of a mobility
session, as long as the mobile node continues to attach to the
mobile access gateway that negotiated the offload policy.
However, when the mobile node performs an inter-MAG handover,
the new mobile access gateway may not be capable of supporting
IP Traffic offload and in this scenario, the offload policy may
change. Therefore, the IPv4 Traffic Selector option with the
Traffic Selector sub-option that is delivered during the
initial mobility signaling MUST be the same as the one that is
delivered as part of the mobility signaling related to lifetime
extension from the same mobile access gateway.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 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 the mobile access gateway and the local mobility
anchor. The default value for this flag is set to (0),
indicating that 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 IPv4 traffic
offload support for all mobility sessions, by specifically
requesting 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
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 IPv4
traffic offload support. If the local mobility anchor chooses
to enable IPv4 traffic offload support when there is an 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
Per this specification, IANA has assigned a new mobility option: the
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (53). This option is described
in Section 3.1. The Type value for this option has been assigned
from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
options [RFC6275].
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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, which essentially introduces certain
vulnerabilities that 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 that 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 both in
the access network and 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
Liebsch, Mark Grayson, Pierrick Seite, Ryuji Wakikawa, Steve Wood,
Barry Leiba, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick, Wesley Eddy, Mary Barnes,
Vincent Roca, Ralph Droms, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell, Adrian
Farrel, Benoit Claise, and Brian Haberman for all the reviews and
discussions related to the topic of IPv4 traffic offload.
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 2013
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. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 6909 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option April 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
Renesas Mobile
Porkkalankatu 24
Helsinki FIN-00180
Finland
EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Gaetan Feige
Cisco
France
EMail: gfeige@cisco.com
Rajeev Koodli
Cisco
3650 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: rkoodli@cisco.com
Gundavelli, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
ERRATA
