GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc: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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6909.txt · Last modified: 2013/04/29 18:14 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki