[MEXT] Discussion proposal on network-initiated flow binding for MIPv6

Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp> Mon, 13 June 2011 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE90421F84C4 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:36:04 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mi2qR8w6MUCJ for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4501F21F84C1 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E951317481F8 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:35:55 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3GCczHRRj70 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:35:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C7E17481D3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:35:55 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (yokotaiMac.mn.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.26]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE84E1B9B4 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:35:27 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4DF55B69.4080606@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:35:53 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [MEXT] Discussion proposal on network-initiated flow binding for MIPv6
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:36:05 -0000

Hi all,

A while back, there was a discussion on network-initiated flow binding,
whereby the home agent indicates the mobile node to move flows between
access networks. At that time, the discussion didn't get enough momentum
partly due to lack of a convincing use case. Nowadays, it is rather
common for a smartphone to have multiple interfaces pumping a lot of
packets into the network. Data traffic offload is becoming a serious
issue for mobile operators worldwide. The host-initiated flow binding
provided by RFC6089 is a big step to realize fine-grained data traffic
offload. And for the next step, it may be a way forward for the network
to be able to trigger flow mobility since the network knows more about
its conditions and interworks with the policy server or application servers.

I would therefore like to revitalize the discussion on the
network-initiated flow binding for MIPv6. The following I-D, which was
once discussed in the past meetings, could be good for restarting the
discussion:

"Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6"
<draft-xia-mext-ha-init-flow-binding>
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xia-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-05.txt

In NetExt WG, there is a similar discussion going for PMIPv6, which
includes network-initiated flow mobility. As a side note, a related item
is being discussed in 3GPP and the discussion in IETF will certainly
help them make their way.

I would appreciate your opinion and hopefully your interest.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi