Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option

Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Thu, 18 August 2011 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
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 C731E21F8B27 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 LPihTC1KjYl3 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A3B21F8B59 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so1709419wyg.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iJL8RqHbX+pULSHef3MUqSlN0wHzygpQ3WJ1vhyUyG4=; b=vkl3HpN3+plvXzAYv1H5RMeFwNEWlJJbYqSdy3lb0Nkq45tz6Rnmey7sU6gmGHr0AT 4j+n0xlbqz6QeGEg1iiP1ZtVp9FGKsDmkZd5R7hVYTB4GU8KozJc92LswrXDkglU/Nz7 1UD9RxHq1tYP83WE0PAaEJkOTNTcZ+bMmypic=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.49.148 with SMTP id x20mr661078web.73.1313679380858; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.39.193 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKcc6AfF_2hCWZyg6A2674ZYPSpL6EK6CfEqz1+bO=4zP5GF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA6867A8.1CF3A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <CAKcc6AfF_2hCWZyg6A2674ZYPSpL6EK6CfEqz1+bO=4zP5GF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:56:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMBSYExunAtYPPN2Y_86mGDr4RBDRy2kpVtwnw832H-4Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f7d49ad8462e04aac8d0cd"
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
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. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:55:29 -0000

Yes  Yes

-Hui

2011/8/18 liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>

> 1. YES
> 2. YES
>
> BTW, I assume this solution would be more suitable only for S2a
> interface if considering using it in 3GPP?
>
> Regards,
> Dapeng Liu
> 2011/8/11, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>:
>  >
> >
> > At IETF81, the Netext WG discussed the proposal: "IP Traffic Offload
> > Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6"
> > <draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt>
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >    This specification defines a mechanism and a related mobility option
> >    for carrying IP Offload traffic selectors between a mobile access
> >    gateway and a local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain.
> >    Based on the received offload flow selectors from the local mobility
> >    anchor, a mobile access gateway can enable offload traffic rule on
> >    the selected IP flows.
> >
> > Please note that the offloading of traffic from the MAG is limited to
> > IPv4 flow only using NAT44 functionality.
> >
> > The general consensus of the room at the IETF81 WG meeting was that
> > this is a relevant problem and should be solved by the WG. As per the
> > minutes:
> > "
> > 11 people think we should solve the problem, 4 think we should not.
> > "
> >
> > As per process, the same question is now being asked on the Netext WG
> > ML before making a decision.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Is the solution to offloading specific IPv4 flows from a MAG of
> > interest to the WG?
> >
> > Yes   [ ]
> > No    [ ]
> >
> > 2. Should we adopt as WG I-D:
> > draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt which will serve as
> > the starting point in specifying the solution?
> >
> > Yes  [ ]
> > No   [ ]
> >
> > Please respond to the above questions by August 18, 2011 on the ML.
> >
> > -Chairs
> >
> > The slides presented at the meeting are available in the IETF81
> > proceedings. Minutes have been posted to the ML and are also available
> > at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu
>  _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>