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

马骁 <thumax9@gmail.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 05:11 UTC

Return-Path: <thumax9@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 D1AF221F86D0 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 2SLobooEBt-7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EE721F86BA for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye1 with SMTP id 1so1274191iye.27 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3MTFOheVN0Oc1emArQO5LXAlKEgqb6EM91C01Mp488k=; b=h40ncx4DmwXYlPb3zxttiM8zkABeupRJys7I7edJsZjyHsLwUM/YXPPS6IWVnOl+ih Zh6gMdkl5Z9kQvtlGkofCPejnBrfYZ273S6HSfmKVdebgN+Dq0WT+hCSOFrZLZo/uyn6 hVy0CBLWE2Pd2icuvDHKTbmKafVZj1Jcm19tk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.167.72 with SMTP id r8mr535441icy.131.1313125853727; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.177.136 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:10:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPi1m95ZKaLGMQyhavd1vab3fPbTO3=bJMfeyAd7drEgPsCOpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?GB2312?B?wu3m5w==?= <thumax9@gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, netext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6134e20e8c8404aa47f083
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 05:11:22 -0000

Q1. Yes
Q2. Yes

Best Regards!
Xiao Ma

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/minutes/netext.txt>

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