IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Sun, 24 July 2011 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.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 407A321F85F1 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.780, 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 ggsoxeklzypw for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876B921F85E3 for <netext@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1258; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311476219; x=1312685819; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MJvu93l+bze2lNxWlCOQU/aDUTwLNhyPoa/vErn4ljA=; b=AWSeyDzkQ90pR/HmlSVcVIl2w3vAAAofVtnbTGIfufXSTH45WIn7+KrI sbTXhkuHjYl0qfKPPcbneVVCxZcvj43syGkTCqHRopEQ4F1vxBL8/6LmG poDoow8S1JtJt+/eS+B3rcZWJ2jBLa7XuLSwEIScd5uUiN0mk8QhRmUzW o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAJyIK06rRDoH/2dsb2JhbAA0AQEBAQIBFAErAwFBBQ4BCRhOUQEBBQ8IJ6cyd4h8n2SdEoY/BIdVixuFEItw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,254,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="5826266"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2011 02:56:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6O2uwnn020723; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 02:56:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:56:58 -0700
Received: from 10.32.243.116 ([10.32.243.116]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 02:56:58 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:56:59 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Message-ID: <CA50D80B.22490%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01
Thread-Index: AcxJrVrk/BnwueN7wkCywtSk0bXGwA==
In-Reply-To: <4E2B6B94.6040400@kddilabs.jp>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2011 02:56:58.0606 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AA870E0:01CC49AD]
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01
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: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 02:57:00 -0000

Hi Yokota-san,

Sure. The options have similar properties, they both use the 6088 formats
for flow selectors. While 6089 identifies the flows for a given access, and
does not cover offload. We could have surely extended this option to DSMIP,
but that is not our main interest at this point of time. Good to see your
interest on SIPTO, we believe this is burning issue for every operator as
well. 



Regards
Sri




On 7/23/11 5:47 PM, "Hidetoshi Yokota" <yokota@kddilabs.jp> wrote:

> Hi Sri,
> 
> (2011/07/22 1:09), Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>> Hi Yokota-san,
>> 
>> Thanks for your review.
>> 
>> This is essentially about IPv4 traffic offload, not about flow distribution
>> for multi-access terminals/flow mobility. This is not about tunnel/interface
>> selection for a given flow, but rather about the IPv4 flows for NAT offload
>> at the access edge/MAG.
> 
> I understand the mechanism that this spec describes. I just thought that
> the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option in your draft and the FID
> mobility option in RFC6089 have the equivalent capability from the
> perspective of carrying the (IPv4) traffic selector. Anyway, I hope that
> this will activate the SIPTO discussion in IETF as well.
> 
> Regards,

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email