From karagian@cs.utwente.nl Tue Jun 5 09:37:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A88221F875C for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:37:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vu9o3-B3kBgK for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (exedge01.ad.utwente.nl [130.89.5.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29EA21F85D6 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.4.228) by EXEDGE01.ad.utwente.nl (130.89.5.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:37:08 +0200 Received: from EXMBX04.ad.utwente.nl ([169.254.4.133]) by EXHUB01.ad.utwente.nl ([130.89.4.228]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:37:04 +0200 From: To: , Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNORaDzXXBLSQQaEiNUGHX4GFi75biQqgAgAm7mMA= Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:37:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.89.12.129] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:37:08 -0000 I support the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. I would however, reco= mmend to the authors to=20 consider the following RFC in their next design steps! Requirements of a Quality of Service (QoS) Solution for Mobile IP, see: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3583.txt This RFC provides an useful insight into the Mobile IP QoS issue, which cou= ld also apply for the Proxy Mobile IP QoS issue! Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? =20 Yes [X] No [ ] > -----Original Message----- > From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Carl Williams > Sent: woensdag 30 mei 2012 15:51 > To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext= - > pmip6-qos as WG document >=20 > I support the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. >=20 > Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. > Respond to the following question: >=20 > Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >=20 > Yes [X] > No [ ] >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 5/23/12 3:01 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" > wrote: >=20 > > > >Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. > >Respond to the following question: > > > >Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? > > > >Yes [ ] > >No [ ] > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Jun 5 12:27:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8117521F87B8 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUqRXxfWk0em for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F027C21F8680 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q55JR1he031219 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:27:02 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:27:00 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-073.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.16]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:27:00 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Conclusion of consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNQ1Et04AtRH8yk0qASTp8MoVpyQ== Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:26:59 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [172.19.40.78] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2012 19:27:00.0925 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E25BED0:01CD4351] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] Conclusion of consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:27:04 -0000 Hello, Following up on the consensus call : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg02498.html There is enough interest and consensus within the Netext WG to adopt I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as a working group document. Please note that it is a starting point only and will likely evolve going forward. Authors: Please submit the I-D as a rev 0 WG document. -Chairs From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Jun 5 13:02:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4417E21F8631 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:02:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZkMmBHBT1k0 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EDE21F8680 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (in-mx.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q55K1qgH032507; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:01:52 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:01:51 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-073.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.16]) by 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:01:51 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Out of office... Thread-Index: AQHNQ1YLS3sRqR5zTESD3erCxn5ZrQ== Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:01:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [172.19.40.78] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <00E3A8F7D60A0E4EBD8A9EE26770C074@mgd.nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2012 20:01:51.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C5B7060:01CD4356] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] Out of office... X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:02:10 -0000 Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I am on vacation until July 8th. All questions etc. pertaining to WG docs etc. should be channeled to Rajeev Koodli. -Raj From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu Wed Jun 6 02:31:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067C621F861D for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:31:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9PaMi2jpIlvz for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013DB21F8599 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895FB10140F; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:32:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9pAJHJ8kBKy; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:32:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from METHONE.office.hd (methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D10B10140E; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:31:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Polydeuces.office.hd ([169.254.3.172]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:30:49 +0200 From: Marco Liebsch To: "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" , "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" , "netext@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNORaDzXXBLSQQaEiNUGHX4GFi75biA0swgABN12CACsfsMA== Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEC41E@Polydeuces.office.hd> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A427E608@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEA8AE@Polydeuces.office.hd> In-Reply-To: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEA8AE@Polydeuces.office.hd> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.6.1] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:31:07 -0000 Hi Dirk, while looking at your comments again to compile an update of the draft, I saw that I did not address your question.. I understand your question addresses two situations:=20 (1) The FMC (or better: FMInterworking), where the handover target for non-cellular access may be in a different administrative domain as the LMA (2) Your second scenario seems to address a DMM case where handover results in assignment of a new LMA, possibly in a different administrative domain. Is this correct? As for (1) I see definitely an advantage in using the QoS option for bootst= rapping QoS in the handover target network without being dependent on a PCC system. For (2) the proposed mechanisms work if there is transfer of QoS context be= tween LMAs during handover, in my opinion, as we consider the LMA as controlling = instance (initiation of QoS settings and validation in case the MAG proposes QoS settings).=20 marco >-----Original Message----- >From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Marco Liebsch >Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 14:43 >To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Dirk, > >thanks for spotting the nits, we'll take them into account in the next rev= ision. > >marco > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de >>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 10:32 >>To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >> >>Hi all, chairs and authors, >> >>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >> >>Yes [x ] >>No [ ] >> >>I also agree to accept the draft as WG document since the proposal >>extends >>PMIP6 signaling but does not require new MN interaction for QoS support >>during HO between cellular and non-cellular (and vice versa as proposed >>in Use Case B, right?). >>If I understood correctly a HO between networks under different >>operators control (and between different LMAs) is not within scope, right= ? >> >>Some nits I detected ... >>On p.10: >>, which is is a =3D> , which is a >>(i.e. pBA). =3D> (i.e. PBA). (assuming it is Proxy Binding >>Acknowledgement) On >>p.20: >>Priority-Level: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it used =3D> Prio= rity-Level: >>is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and is used >> >>Thanks and best regards! >>Dirk >> >>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im >>Auftrag von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com >>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 21:02 >>An: netext@ietf.org >>Betreff: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6- qos as WG document >> >> >>Hello, >> >>The authors of the I-D: Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 >>>liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liebsch-netext- >>pmip6-qos-01.txt >> >>have requested the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. >>The I-D itself has been presented at IETF83 and has also been reviewed >>by multiple WG members. >> >>The crux of the proposal is to extend PMIP6 signaling to enable support >>for QoS. >> >>Abstract >> >> This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by >> the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to exchange >> Quality of Service parameters associated with a subscriber's IP >> flows. Using the QoS option, the local mobility anchor and the >> mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS attributes and >> associated values. This enables QoS policing and labeling of packets >> to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the local mobility >> anchor and the mobile access gateway. Furthermore, making QoS >> parameters available on the MAG enables mapping these parameters to >> QoS rules being specific to the access technology which operates >> below the mobile access gateway. After such mapping, QoS rules can >> be enforced on the access technology components, such as an IEEE >> 802.11e Wireless LAN controller. >> >> >>Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. >>Respond to the following question: >> >>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >> >>Yes [ ] >>No [ ] >> >>Thank you. >>-Chairs >> >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >_______________________________________________ >netext mailing list >netext@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 6 08:00:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB2F21F8534; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:00:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTML8Waan4Cz; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F42321F86EA; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:00:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120606150030.26439.80588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:00:30 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:00:31 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Marco Liebsch Pierrick Seite Hidetoshi Yokota Jouni Korhonen Sri Gundavelli Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2012-06-06 This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to exchange Quality of Service parameters associated with a subscriber's IP flows. Using the QoS option, the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS attributes and associated values. This enables QoS policing and labeling of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway. Furthermore, making QoS parameters available on the MAG enables mapping these parameters to QoS rules being specific to the access technology which operates below the mobile access gateway. After such mapping, QoS rules can be enforced on the access technology components, such as an IEEE 802.11e Wireless LAN controller. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-00.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos/ From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Wed Jun 6 08:43:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A422F21F88D5 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2ses5fJOnHH for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5F321F88CC for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 06 Jun 2012 17:43:25 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:43:25 +0200 From: To: , , Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:43:23 +0200 Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNORaDzXXBLSQQaEiNUGHX4GFi75biA0swgABN12CACsfsMIAASEwg Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A450C516@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A427E608@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEA8AE@Polydeuces.office.hd> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEC41E@Polydeuces.office.hd> In-Reply-To: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEC41E@Polydeuces.office.hd> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:43:30 -0000 Hi Marco, Thanks, right - my original question was on different LMAs not mentioned in= the draft. So the answer is: handover and subsequent exchange of the QoS c= ontext between MAGs belonging to LMAs within different domains is not exclu= ded, right? I think that the reason why it is not mentioned explicitly is that just sta= ndard PMIPv6 procedures apply. The new MAG after MN attachment will via PBU= /PBA to its (new) LMA learn about the old LMA (Similarily to MIP6 any MAG c= an perform dynamic LMA discovery via the LMA list available at the serving = LMA to dettect an other LMA related to the MNs HNP) - and subsequently via = PBU/PBA between new MAG and old LMA exchange QoS context. This allows for (= indirect) transfer of QoS oprions between LMAs at different administrative = domains (without both being connected to same PCF), right? However it seems that such a procedure may take some time before the new Qo= S is established at the new LMA ... And for to achieve a more seamless hand= over an optimization may be up for future work - or have I missed somethin= g? Thanks a lot for clarification (or confirmation ;-)) Best regards Dirk -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Marco Liebsch [mailto:Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012 11:31 An: von Hugo, Dirk; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-p= mip6-qos as WG document Hi Dirk, while looking at your comments again to compile an update of the draft, I saw that I did not address your question.. I understand your question addresses two situations: (1) The FMC (or better: FMInterworking), where the handover target for non-cellular access may be in a different administrative domain as the LMA (2) Your second scenario seems to address a DMM case where handover results in assignment of a new LMA, possibly in a different administrative domain. Is this correct? As for (1) I see definitely an advantage in using the QoS option for bootst= rapping QoS in the handover target network without being dependent on a PCC system. For (2) the proposed mechanisms work if there is transfer of QoS context be= tween LMAs during handover, in my opinion, as we consider the LMA as controlling = instance (initiation of QoS settings and validation in case the MAG proposes QoS settings). marco >-----Original Message----- >From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Marco Liebsch >Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 14:43 >To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Dirk, > >thanks for spotting the nits, we'll take them into account in the next rev= ision. > >marco > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de >>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 10:32 >>To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >> >>Hi all, chairs and authors, >> >>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >> >>Yes [x ] >>No [ ] >> >>I also agree to accept the draft as WG document since the proposal >>extends >>PMIP6 signaling but does not require new MN interaction for QoS support >>during HO between cellular and non-cellular (and vice versa as proposed >>in Use Case B, right?). >>If I understood correctly a HO between networks under different >>operators control (and between different LMAs) is not within scope, right= ? >> >>Some nits I detected ... >>On p.10: >>, which is is a =3D> , which is a >>(i.e. pBA). =3D> (i.e. PBA). (assuming it is Proxy Binding >>Acknowledgement) On >>p.20: >>Priority-Level: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it used =3D> Prio= rity-Level: >>is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and is used >> >>Thanks and best regards! >>Dirk >> >>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im >>Auftrag von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com >>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 21:02 >>An: netext@ietf.org >>Betreff: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6- qos as WG document >> >> >>Hello, >> >>The authors of the I-D: Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 >>>liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liebsch-netext- >>pmip6-qos-01.txt >> >>have requested the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. >>The I-D itself has been presented at IETF83 and has also been reviewed >>by multiple WG members. >> >>The crux of the proposal is to extend PMIP6 signaling to enable support >>for QoS. >> >>Abstract >> >> This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by >> the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to exchange >> Quality of Service parameters associated with a subscriber's IP >> flows. Using the QoS option, the local mobility anchor and the >> mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS attributes and >> associated values. This enables QoS policing and labeling of packets >> to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the local mobility >> anchor and the mobile access gateway. Furthermore, making QoS >> parameters available on the MAG enables mapping these parameters to >> QoS rules being specific to the access technology which operates >> below the mobile access gateway. After such mapping, QoS rules can >> be enforced on the access technology components, such as an IEEE >> 802.11e Wireless LAN controller. >> >> >>Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. >>Respond to the following question: >> >>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >> >>Yes [ ] >>No [ ] >> >>Thank you. >>-Chairs >> >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >_______________________________________________ >netext mailing list >netext@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Jun 7 09:52:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51E411E8107 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DCakhT4H9Fk4 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A042621F87A8 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so702253yhq.31 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DIRy8ke8RgTc7TXpMG9ls1FatVaMxky2//IPZJpWFqY=; b=VyYMRwTLZroHIRr4/pCBHU4Z6cp54SSgOVD6ZbADpnlwrpU+T8p7DbFzet4bCDSDxF EE+I2UFPlAvl5gopamL/ZPCFNrGdADFD443svv/iiA2YZ3cz5Zs7lfd/PerNFIhfxzjG E5d43t346wreMegtGoWg7OvHzFQYRW9YYx5P+T9Rh9fO74Sjq+Pn3LOeiqYwRNDelIa+ 3+n9jsZiQO3Img/EgdYecNVldc4Rg4OBPFede8kAjjfVVlhP2SmveGy7rFS4F1uQ/aw1 qH7RBin2MRB7Op+O3OH/8UHP+GH67/0Mtw+9n+WvxeyWR9+GinK88tXFqj6SqxqL8btX f/7g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.130.68 with SMTP id u4mr2076910ics.17.1339087923124; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:52:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: netext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [netext] draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:52:07 -0000 Hi all, We have revised this draft and posted rev. -02 at: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.txt Regards, Behcet From Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu Fri Jun 8 07:42:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640E621F8503 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aBa4OuzJCcsM for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DC721F8582 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C69010146E; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:44:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J-ib0kjpzeD7; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:44:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11179101469; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:43:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Polydeuces.office.hd ([169.254.3.172]) by ENCELADUS.office.hd ([192.168.24.52]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:42:28 +0200 From: Marco Liebsch To: "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" , "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" , "netext@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNORaDzXXBLSQQaEiNUGHX4GFi75biA0swgABN12CACsfsMIAASEwggAMzD4A= Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:42:27 +0000 Message-ID: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DECEE5@Polydeuces.office.hd> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A427E608@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEA8AE@Polydeuces.office.hd> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEC41E@Polydeuces.office.hd> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A450C516@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A450C516@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.6.1] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:42:45 -0000 Dirk, please see inline. >-----Original Message----- >From: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de [mailto:Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de] >Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012 17:43 >To: Marco Liebsch; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Subject: AW: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Marco, >Thanks, right - my original question was on different LMAs not mentioned i= n >the draft. So the answer is: handover and subsequent exchange of the QoS >context between MAGs belonging to LMAs within different domains is not >excluded, right? We don't describe this case in the document but refer to a stable anchor in the current description and handover between MAGs according to RFC5213 operation. >I think that the reason why it is not mentioned explicitly is that just st= andard >PMIPv6 procedures apply. The new MAG after MN attachment will via >PBU/PBA to its (new) LMA learn about the old LMA (Similarily to MIP6 any >MAG can perform dynamic LMA discovery via the LMA list available at the >serving LMA to dettect an other LMA related to the MNs HNP) - and >subsequently via PBU/PBA between new MAG and old LMA exchange QoS >context. This allows for (indirect) transfer of QoS oprions between LMAs a= t >different administrative domains (without both being connected to same >PCF), right? If you consider sequential operation, first moving to a different MAG, then subsequently moving to a different LMA while remaining at the current MAG, I think the option can help to convey the QoS context (from previous LMA to new MAG, then to the new LMA) to a new peer of LMA/MAG. >However it seems that such a procedure may take some time before the new >QoS is established at the new LMA ... And for to achieve a more seamless >handover an optimization may be up for future work - or have I missed >something? If my understanding of your proposal according to my feedback above is corr= ect, there is more to be done than establishing QoS context at a new LMA. This l= ooks more like a DMM use case to me. >Thanks a lot for clarification (or confirmation ;-)) Hope it was clarification or confirmation and no confusion ;-) marco > >Best regards >Dirk >-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Marco Liebsch [mailto:Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu] >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012 11:31 >An: von Hugo, Dirk; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Betreff: RE: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Dirk, >while looking at your comments again to compile an update of the draft, I = saw >that I did not address your question.. > >I understand your question addresses two situations: >(1) The FMC (or better: FMInterworking), where the handover target for non= - >cellular access may be in a different administrative domain as the LMA >(2) Your second scenario seems to address a DMM case where handover >results in assignment of a new LMA, possibly in a different administrative >domain. > >Is this correct? > >As for (1) I see definitely an advantage in using the QoS option for >bootstrapping QoS in the handover target network without being dependent >on a PCC system. > >For (2) the proposed mechanisms work if there is transfer of QoS context >between LMAs during handover, in my opinion, as we consider the LMA as >controlling instance (initiation of QoS settings and validation in case th= e MAG >proposes QoS settings). > >marco > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Marco Liebsch >>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 14:43 >>To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; >>netext@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >> >>Hi Dirk, >> >>thanks for spotting the nits, we'll take them into account in the next re= vision. >> >>marco >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>Behalf Of Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de >>>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 10:32 >>>To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >>> >>>Hi all, chairs and authors, >>> >>>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >>> >>>Yes [x ] >>>No [ ] >>> >>>I also agree to accept the draft as WG document since the proposal >>>extends >>>PMIP6 signaling but does not require new MN interaction for QoS >>>support during HO between cellular and non-cellular (and vice versa as >>>proposed in Use Case B, right?). >>>If I understood correctly a HO between networks under different >>>operators control (and between different LMAs) is not within scope, righ= t? >>> >>>Some nits I detected ... >>>On p.10: >>>, which is is a =3D> , which is a >>>(i.e. pBA). =3D> (i.e. PBA). (assuming it is Proxy Binding >>>Acknowledgement) On >>>p.20: >>>Priority-Level: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it used =3D> Pri= ority- >Level: >>>is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and is used >>> >>>Thanks and best regards! >>>Dirk >>> >>>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>>Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im >>>Auftrag von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com >>>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 21:02 >>>An: netext@ietf.org >>>Betreff: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>>draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6- qos as WG document >>> >>> >>>Hello, >>> >>>The authors of the I-D: Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile >>>IPv6 >>>>>liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liebsch-netext- >>>pmip6-qos-01.txt >>> >>>have requested the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. >>>The I-D itself has been presented at IETF83 and has also been reviewed >>>by multiple WG members. >>> >>>The crux of the proposal is to extend PMIP6 signaling to enable >>>support for QoS. >>> >>>Abstract >>> >>> This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by >>> the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to exchange >>> Quality of Service parameters associated with a subscriber's IP >>> flows. Using the QoS option, the local mobility anchor and the >>> mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS attributes and >>> associated values. This enables QoS policing and labeling of packets >>> to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the local mobility >>> anchor and the mobile access gateway. Furthermore, making QoS >>> parameters available on the MAG enables mapping these parameters to >>> QoS rules being specific to the access technology which operates >>> below the mobile access gateway. After such mapping, QoS rules can >>> be enforced on the access technology components, such as an IEEE >>> 802.11e Wireless LAN controller. >>> >>> >>>Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. >>>Respond to the following question: >>> >>>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >>> >>>Yes [ ] >>>No [ ] >>> >>>Thank you. >>>-Chairs >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>netext mailing list >>>netext@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>_______________________________________________ >>>netext mailing list >>>netext@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Mon Jun 11 02:06:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9421F8535 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SbQBhAQ-0kej for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2AB21F854E for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 11 Jun 2012 11:06:12 +0200 Received: from HE113676.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.134.99.29) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.134.93.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:06:12 +0200 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE113676.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:06:11 +0200 From: To: Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:06:11 +0200 Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document Thread-Index: AQHNORaDzXXBLSQQaEiNUGHX4GFi75biA0swgABN12CACsfsMIAASEwggAMzD4CABFp+cA== Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A45DD803@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A427E608@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEA8AE@Polydeuces.office.hd> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DEC41E@Polydeuces.office.hd> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A27A450C516@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DECEE5@Polydeuces.office.hd> In-Reply-To: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26D24DECEE5@Polydeuces.office.hd> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:06:21 -0000 Hi Marco, Thanks for your time and effort to clarify. I agree that with increasing am= ount of LMAs in (parallel) operation we clearly arrive at (here: PMIP-based= ) DMM use cases. No confusion any more :-) Thanks again and Best regards Dirk -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Marco Liebsch [mailto:Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu] Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Juni 2012 16:42 An: von Hugo, Dirk; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org Betreff: RE: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext-p= mip6-qos as WG document Dirk, please see inline. >-----Original Message----- >From: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de [mailto:Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de] >Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012 17:43 >To: Marco Liebsch; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Subject: AW: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Marco, >Thanks, right - my original question was on different LMAs not mentioned i= n >the draft. So the answer is: handover and subsequent exchange of the QoS >context between MAGs belonging to LMAs within different domains is not >excluded, right? We don't describe this case in the document but refer to a stable anchor in the current description and handover between MAGs according to RFC5213 operation. >I think that the reason why it is not mentioned explicitly is that just st= andard >PMIPv6 procedures apply. The new MAG after MN attachment will via >PBU/PBA to its (new) LMA learn about the old LMA (Similarily to MIP6 any >MAG can perform dynamic LMA discovery via the LMA list available at the >serving LMA to dettect an other LMA related to the MNs HNP) - and >subsequently via PBU/PBA between new MAG and old LMA exchange QoS >context. This allows for (indirect) transfer of QoS oprions between LMAs a= t >different administrative domains (without both being connected to same >PCF), right? If you consider sequential operation, first moving to a different MAG, then subsequently moving to a different LMA while remaining at the current MAG, I think the option can help to convey the QoS context (from previous LMA to new MAG, then to the new LMA) to a new peer of LMA/MAG. >However it seems that such a procedure may take some time before the new >QoS is established at the new LMA ... And for to achieve a more seamless >handover an optimization may be up for future work - or have I missed >something? If my understanding of your proposal according to my feedback above is corr= ect, there is more to be done than establishing QoS context at a new LMA. This l= ooks more like a DMM use case to me. >Thanks a lot for clarification (or confirmation ;-)) Hope it was clarification or confirmation and no confusion ;-) marco > >Best regards >Dirk >-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Marco Liebsch [mailto:Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu] >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Juni 2012 11:31 >An: von Hugo, Dirk; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >Betreff: RE: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D draft-liebsch-netext- >pmip6-qos as WG document > >Hi Dirk, >while looking at your comments again to compile an update of the draft, I = saw >that I did not address your question.. > >I understand your question addresses two situations: >(1) The FMC (or better: FMInterworking), where the handover target for non= - >cellular access may be in a different administrative domain as the LMA >(2) Your second scenario seems to address a DMM case where handover >results in assignment of a new LMA, possibly in a different administrative >domain. > >Is this correct? > >As for (1) I see definitely an advantage in using the QoS option for >bootstrapping QoS in the handover target network without being dependent >on a PCC system. > >For (2) the proposed mechanisms work if there is transfer of QoS context >between LMAs during handover, in my opinion, as we consider the LMA as >controlling instance (initiation of QoS settings and validation in case th= e MAG >proposes QoS settings). > >marco > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Marco Liebsch >>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 14:43 >>To: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; >>netext@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >> >>Hi Dirk, >> >>thanks for spotting the nits, we'll take them into account in the next re= vision. >> >>marco >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>Behalf Of Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de >>>Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2012 10:32 >>>To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>>draft-liebsch-netext- pmip6-qos as WG document >>> >>>Hi all, chairs and authors, >>> >>>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >>> >>>Yes [x ] >>>No [ ] >>> >>>I also agree to accept the draft as WG document since the proposal >>>extends >>>PMIP6 signaling but does not require new MN interaction for QoS >>>support during HO between cellular and non-cellular (and vice versa as >>>proposed in Use Case B, right?). >>>If I understood correctly a HO between networks under different >>>operators control (and between different LMAs) is not within scope, righ= t? >>> >>>Some nits I detected ... >>>On p.10: >>>, which is is a =3D> , which is a >>>(i.e. pBA). =3D> (i.e. PBA). (assuming it is Proxy Binding >>>Acknowledgement) On >>>p.20: >>>Priority-Level: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it used =3D> Pri= ority- >Level: >>>is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and is used >>> >>>Thanks and best regards! >>>Dirk >>> >>>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>>Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im >>>Auftrag von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com >>>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 21:02 >>>An: netext@ietf.org >>>Betreff: [netext] Consensus call on adopting I-D >>>draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6- qos as WG document >>> >>> >>>Hello, >>> >>>The authors of the I-D: Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile >>>IPv6 >>>>>liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liebsch-netext- >>>pmip6-qos-01.txt >>> >>>have requested the adoption of this I-D as a WG document. >>>The I-D itself has been presented at IETF83 and has also been reviewed >>>by multiple WG members. >>> >>>The crux of the proposal is to extend PMIP6 signaling to enable >>>support for QoS. >>> >>>Abstract >>> >>> This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by >>> the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain to exchange >>> Quality of Service parameters associated with a subscriber's IP >>> flows. Using the QoS option, the local mobility anchor and the >>> mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS attributes and >>> associated values. This enables QoS policing and labeling of packets >>> to enforce QoS differentiation on the path between the local mobility >>> anchor and the mobile access gateway. Furthermore, making QoS >>> parameters available on the MAG enables mapping these parameters to >>> QoS rules being specific to the access technology which operates >>> below the mobile access gateway. After such mapping, QoS rules can >>> be enforced on the access technology components, such as an IEEE >>> 802.11e Wireless LAN controller. >>> >>> >>>Please review the I-D and respond by June 6th with your opinion. >>>Respond to the following question: >>> >>>Should the Netext WG adopt this I-D as a WG document? >>> >>>Yes [ ] >>>No [ ] >>> >>>Thank you. >>>-Chairs >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>netext mailing list >>>netext@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>_______________________________________________ >>>netext mailing list >>>netext@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>_______________________________________________ >>netext mailing list >>netext@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon Jun 11 11:12:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AE221F844B for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m2N-v2SemUsU for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA5021F844A for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so3244824yen.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=73uAgvGE5DKajr33k0gxKr0aBXlDisZpsPl4/dYJ1lU=; b=ufKJ8GC6lHbfqGfHVKCcxvTRHa05bfuS8dD3m2VvSlm4H2TZAQ2AIj1N3OFt0NxBmc 69JPcAOBH7C+q19bnOYYnHb2sZ+5SkehPADW/7njoxoYd+ncohM1bOORAb4A0B2CFwfV hbzs6RJZuYar8eVgwEofvPnw5eXjcB595YleYEEENtuVARaXc50uah7EsQNz79lFStoO /YZK6jHySPSqGviYLouc6n98q7IwRlSsoxDuUP0WjIfvJXrGuF6ZsMeXe6+FTly91HID j2Kv9xliQzbUFMstwt/LpYrGfJINDaWLnv7GeiYqoFQUCCHOLFp7hJSaLR6AbIXCGOnp XHNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.195.234 with SMTP id ih10mr7059108igc.0.1339438359056; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:12:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Jes=FAs_Bernardos_Cano?= , netext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:12:41 -0000 Hi Carlos, Can you please take a look at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.txt? I am hearing the some implementers that they first implement the extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility protocol for PMIPv6. To me it makes sense given the fact that with the current model in RFC 5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility. What do you think? Regards. Behcet From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Jun 11 15:48:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9D111E809F; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:48:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljg-8Al67V0P; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfcpa.amsl.com [12.22.58.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A3611E809C; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 300B2B1E005; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:48:10 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120611224810.300B2B1E005@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: netext@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [netext] RFC 6572 on RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:48:16 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6572 Title: RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author: F. Xia, B. Sarikaya, J. Korhonen, Ed., S. Gundavelli, D. Damic Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: June 2012 Mailbox: xiayangsong@huawei.com, sarikaya@ieee.org, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, sgundave@cisco.com, damjan.damic@siemens.com Pages: 36 Characters: 74903 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-08.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6572.txt This document defines new attributes to facilitate Proxy Mobile IPv6 operations using the RADIUS infrastructure. The protocol defined in this document uses RADIUS-based interfaces of the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor with the AAA server for authentication, authorization, and policy functions. The RADIUS interactions between the mobile access gateway and the RADIUS-based AAA server take place when the mobile node (MN) attaches, authenticates, and authorizes to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. Furthermore, this document defines the RADIUS-based interface between the local mobility anchor and the AAA RADIUS server for authorizing received Proxy Binding Update messages for the mobile node's mobility session. In addition to the interactions related to mobility session setup, this document defines the baseline for the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor generated accounting. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 12 02:31:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91F221F85B5; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:31:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWbG4FmQYlDo; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3574E21F858D; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:31:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120612093148.30346.78402.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:31:48 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-rfc5149bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:31:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working= Group of the IETF. Title : Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Jouni Korhonen Ulf Nilsson Vijay Devarapalli Filename : draft-ietf-netext-rfc5149bis-01.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-12 Abstract: In some Mobile IPv6 deployments, identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish between multiple services possibly provisioned to the mobile node and its mobility service subscription. A capability to specify different services in addition to the mobile node identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for mobility service providers on provisioning multiple services to one mobility service subscription. This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for both conventional Mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile IPv6 that is intended to assist home agents and local mobility agents to make a specific service selection for the mobility service subscription during the binding registration procedure. This specification updates RFC5213 and obsoletes RFC5149. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-rfc5149bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-01 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-netext-rfc5149bis-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From cjbc@it.uc3m.es Tue Jun 12 11:32:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D188721F84E1 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubjEoR05ge0Z for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E0D21F8447 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E3F1250A1; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:32:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1339525941.5310.52.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: sarikaya@ieee.org Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:32:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8QQjnB9nx8cuajXiycFo" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-6.8.0.1017-18966.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.460-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--5.460-7.0-31-1 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:32:27 -0000 --=-8QQjnB9nx8cuajXiycFo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Behcet, On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:12 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Carlos, >=20 > Can you please take a look at > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.t= xt? Yes, I knew and read your draft. >=20 > I am hearing the some implementers that they first implement the > extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility > protocol for PMIPv6. >=20 There are also some implementers interested in implementing draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob (or already doing it). Just take a look at the list of authors and the companies they work for. > To me it makes sense given the fact that with the current model in RFC > 5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility. >=20 > What do you think? The WG is chartered to work on the required extensions to do flow mobility in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob. If you have comments/suggestions on what is missing or wrong, please bring them to the list for the WG to discuss. Thanks! Carlos >=20 > Regards. >=20 > Behcet --=20 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IEEE Network Special Issue on Video over Mobile Networks http://dl.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0313.htm=20 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --=-8QQjnB9nx8cuajXiycFo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/XizUACgkQNdy6TdFwT2cfZQCeNNMgDco+KwsWvLtFoB/FHSuC ZVkAoMdc3YpTSRvADl9DEBNw7QQKv8f8 =F4Mx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8QQjnB9nx8cuajXiycFo-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Tue Jun 12 13:01:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5B121F8550 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Yhpf-qoStG8 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04F821F8557 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so4415871yen.31 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2IeqRTCwyE7rp5x7HeyArFuERVAcEXsDW4C/E5cykTA=; b=vx+JrMvI/+1ewploxy3Lzq51fOHkjWQeBj2Uns+oURiVsktfgGtPGg5cuJUiWj+8S/ /wvlsiAhDmkbuOV6/mxStKbvgxilGWsbUjTDeiTiXVgN6aMaUDYp8EopI1zP18Ob6x0o yJSpIkQ8bgczR+PeyWQho11zD1PEPDp5Ii4dc3jc6WO/K1eqbrFn9dS11eF9t0frLvWY 6xux0bGP2T65vCq1FgGLu5xvwnxWVhAI3g49NY2bdgrJ8gMFqyPzMs6FWSRizEjpOGTk 62sDNiap5F2ViZ8bvRqzktNU+mtp52v2m6F9DsctzTZ2d4xm/mnVU5M7IIL2kwEKB/ed rLXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.195.234 with SMTP id ih10mr9442241igc.0.1339531266515; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1339525941.5310.52.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> References: <1339525941.5310.52.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:01:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:01:10 -0000 On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:12 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Hi Carlos, >> >> Can you please take a look at >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.= txt? > > Yes, I knew and read your draft. > Good. >> >> I am hearing the some implementers that they first implement the >> extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility >> protocol for PMIPv6. >> > > There are also some implementers interested in implementing > draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob (or already doing it). Just take a look > at the list of authors and the companies they work for. > Don't get what you mean? Author=3Dimplementer? I can see only one author, yourself, so you are also implementer? >> To me it makes sense given the fact that with the current model in RFC >> 5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility. >> >> What do you think? > > The WG is chartered to work on the required extensions to do flow > mobility in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob. If you have > comments/suggestions on what is missing or wrong, please bring them to > the list for the WG to discuss. > As we explain it in draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions, PMIPv6 multihoming model in RFC 5213 treats each interface independently of the others. It is not possible to move flows between interfaces without changing this model. An integrated treatment of the bindings is needed. We come up with a solution which is quite simple. I suggest that you add a normative reference to this draft. Regards, Behcet From cjbc@it.uc3m.es Tue Jun 12 23:55:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A0521F8625 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:55:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wZjwzNvFyem for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822D221F8627 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 248B19D74D0; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:55:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1339570544.5310.62.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: sarikaya@ieee.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:55:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1339525941.5310.52.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5xiYcSQkcrk+2K32dkLw" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-6.8.0.1017-18966.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--18.517-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--18.517-7.0-31-1 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:55:48 -0000 --=-5xiYcSQkcrk+2K32dkLw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Behcet, On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 15:01 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano > wrote: > > Hi Behcet, > > > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 13:12 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > >> Hi Carlos, > >> > >> Can you please take a look at > >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-0= 2.txt? > > > > Yes, I knew and read your draft. > > >=20 > Good. >=20 > >> > >> I am hearing the some implementers that they first implement the > >> extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility > >> protocol for PMIPv6. > >> > > > > There are also some implementers interested in implementing > > draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob (or already doing it). Just take a loo= k > > at the list of authors and the companies they work for. > > >=20 > Don't get what you mean? Author=3Dimplementer? I guess we can safely assume that an author is a person interested in the topic. If the author works for a company, I guess this is because the company supports it. > I can see only one author, yourself, so you are also implementer? I'm the editor, not the author. Originally, there were many authors (see Section 9), and now it is a WG document, so all the WG is responsible of the document itself. And yes, I'm also an implementer, aren't you? I think it is quite useful to have real implementation experience when working on protocol standardization. >=20 > >> To me it makes sense given the fact that with the current model in RFC > >> 5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > The WG is chartered to work on the required extensions to do flow > > mobility in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob. If you have > > comments/suggestions on what is missing or wrong, please bring them to > > the list for the WG to discuss. > > >=20 > As we explain it in draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions, > PMIPv6 multihoming model in RFC 5213 treats each interface > independently of the others. It is not possible to move flows between > interfaces without changing this model. An integrated treatment of the > bindings is needed. > We come up with a solution which is quite simple. >=20 draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob also deals with that, but in a different way. We can discuss in the WG which is the best approach to use and document that in the draft. Thanks, Carlos > I suggest that you add a normative reference to this draft. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet --=20 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IEEE Network Special Issue on Video over Mobile Networks http://dl.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0313.htm=20 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --=-5xiYcSQkcrk+2K32dkLw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk/YOXAACgkQNdy6TdFwT2fIgQCgsWdKypcDWXddK3RhdOmA824L jbkAoNoNN6GYs0xAceTJaMhuNZAiEm+O =Fr5z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5xiYcSQkcrk+2K32dkLw-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon Jun 18 09:10:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0843521F86DA for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.692 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.582, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MS3CiFTlsGoF for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD0121F847A for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so4316371yen.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oYDhU4MPrdmuF0FdcpdjRu0375rrVIAmw0DUXxWO8vI=; b=haz1Dqg2uS1FYUFOMtivYmKZb+/0iKRAeTWwCZG6Vxf5FAzxP088lRcDlepiyLBZ87 0Mgc/Rpp6iKTQwQJ37woA2DlUd/t19PLvSmyC3q/XNBi8TAPV3s0EzLD2fHdYQS5JlSQ 7F+GFDwDjW4cXCnoDdYBDnV6dBeEtv9nxRJl9lV/i//+6NJQ7AjWYaavw5yA0vH5BbOq m2SZ0WH5epz7umSN6sgxGOJ42fy04nrReaqBhkd4UXOEQSLZ2qEn68UaZqTlnIy2/ykv C8IDfmks2oAstnVeRjYSQAVtindoNuqFdkLSO5E6VxFesPtm/7k5Xg5bYmOZpePj2eoJ l6Gg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.154.233 with SMTP id vr9mr9135966igb.9.1340035817833; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.118.210 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:10:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1339570544.5310.62.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> References: <1339525941.5310.52.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <1339570544.5310.62.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:10:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:10:28 -0000 Hi Carlos, On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos > > draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob also deals with that, but in a > different way. We can discuss in the WG which is the best approach to > use and document that in the draft. I don't understand what you mean here. One observation I have regarding draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob is that PMIPv6 design philosophy of keeping LMA behaviour close to HA behaviour is simply not followed. I don't think we can go far by not doing it. Regards, Behcet From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Jun 26 09:18:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6776021F851C; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:18:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ShPrMPtDRYmj; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAD221F85AF; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21 Message-ID: <20120626161838.15819.92550.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:18:38 -0700 Cc: netext mailing list , netext chair , RFC Editor Subject: [netext] Protocol Action: 'Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-10.txt) X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:18:39 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6' (draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-10.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ralph Droms. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr/ Technical Summary Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism. Working Group Summary This document has been presented and discussed at length in the working group. It includes multiple contributors who are listed in the Authors section. There is sufficient consensus behind the document. The authors could not agree on the tunnelling mechanism to be used between the MAGs. This has however been resolved based on the solution that is presented in RFC5949 (Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6). Document Quality There are no known implementation of the protocol at the present time. However there is strong interest in utilizing the optimization feature in the context of network based mobility solutions. The document quality is good and provides reasonable clarity for an implementer who understands PMIP6 (RFC5213). Personnel The Document Shepherd is Basavaraj Patil, and the responsible Area Director is Brian Haberman. RFC Editor Note - Section 5.1 OLD: When the LMA receives the PBU from nMAG for MN1, it will see that localized routing is active for MN1. It MUST hence initiate LR at nMAG and update the LR state of MAG. NEW: When the LMA receives the PBU from nMAG for MN1, it will see that localized routing is active for MN1. The LMA MUST hence initiate LR at nMAG and update the LR state of pMAG. - Section 11.1 OLD: Reserved (R) This 8-bit field is unused for now. NEW: Reserved (R) This 8-bit field is unused.