Re: [netext] pmip-cp-up-separation

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <> Fri, 16 August 2013 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA2711E82AF for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dR3CIoyxDgBC for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56BF11E82A7 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5896; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1376668626; x=1377878226; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FFRfU7Myw9tcw3DRNZxnjapCkojXnZfI7QQc9SkiDe0=; b=XUhp1Vs/OnIocWfF1FfUAjWabMr+EcgENXPIFUctBsiN5bwFSVz3om+p B0ZFxPRG2+uAhDcq89ssFuuJY6wh1rAy4ESCW2fiu48Wlc4YkXNH54NWj YUYstyzctGByBJkAs/sKvoMP2z2J9I1ZLt077Mp0uNLnhLcMW2DKGKI22 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.89,895,1367971200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="248177709"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2013 15:57:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7GFv6wl030720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:57:06 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:57:06 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <>
To: Alper Yegin <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netext] pmip-cp-up-separation
Thread-Index: AQHOmplBzk2/SqVe1066/BsvA2k0LQ==
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:57:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8103FFEE2xmbalnx03ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [netext] pmip-cp-up-separation
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, 16 Aug 2013 15:57:12 -0000

Hi Alper,

We were thinking of allowing the option to be carried in the PBU with to indicate capability and also to keep it aligned with the other mobility options that we have defined recently. So, in that sense the option may be present in the PBU, but I'm wondering in what cases, the MAG would have more specific information. In general, the LMA-CP identity may be known to the MAG, but may be not the DP identity; there the broader goal is to have the DP identity be dynamically allocated by LMA-CP and have that exposed to the MAG as part of the signaling exchange.


From: Alper Yegin <<>>
Date: Friday, August 16, 2013 6:19 AM
To: "<>" <<>>
Subject: [netext] pmip-cp-up-separation

LMA User Plane Address Mobility Option is only used with the PBA.

If the MAG has prior info about the LMA-UPA, it could also provide that in PBU.

Should we allow that new option with PBU as well?