[netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt
Ahmad Muhanna <ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.com> Mon, 30 January 2012 16:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.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 B02A921F8642 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:20:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0SHgnIAUV-U6 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5303921F8698 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q0UGJuwS031268 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:19:59 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.40]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:19:59 -0500
From: Ahmad Muhanna <ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:19:57 -0500
Thread-Topic: Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt
Thread-Index: Aczc0ROglE/CDUTBRuW75YlYxAYO1gCl2l/Q
Message-ID: <1FCAE7B6027FE3489B8497A060C704C4443BD93B1B@EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <20120127085238.16659.2453.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120127085238.16659.2453.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01.txt
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:20:01 -0000
Hello, Please find my review comments for Rev 01 of the I-D (draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option) below: I have mainly editorial comments that need clarification and a couple of minor technical ones below. Regards, Ahmad >>>>> 1. Introduction Mobile Operators are expanding their network coverage by integrating various access technology domains into a common IP mobile core. For providing IP mobility support to a mobile node irrespective of the access network to which it is attached, the 3GPP S2/a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [TS23402] interface, specified by the 3GPP system architecture, is providing the needed protocol glue. [Ahmad-01] why we are using S2/a rather than S2a? [Ahmad-02] Please replace 'is providing' with 'provides' When this protocol interface based on Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] is used, the mobile node is topologically anchored on the local mobility anchor [RFC5213] in the home network. [Ahmad-03] when Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol [RFC5213] is used on this interface, the mobile node ... [Ahmad-04] Is it "anchored on" or "anchored at"? The mobile node's IP traffic is always tunneled back from the mobile access gateway [RFC5213] in the access network to the local mobility anchor in the home network. However, with the exponential growth in the mobile data traffic, mobile operators are exploring new ways to offload some of the IP traffic flows at the nearest access edge where ever there is an internet peering point, as supposed to carrying it all the way to the mobility anchor in the home network. Not all IP traffic needs to be routed back to the home network, some of the non-essential traffic which does not require IP mobility support can be offloaded at the mobile access gateway in the access network. This approach provides greater leverage and efficient usage of the mobile packet core with increased overall network capacity and by lowering transport costs. [Ahmad-06] I have problem with the last sentence above... what are we trying to say? May be something like follows: "With increased overall network capacity, this approach provides greater leverage and efficient usage of the mobile packet core which help lowering transport cost" Hope it makes it read better! :-) The local mobility anchor in the home network can potentially deliver the IP flow selectors to the mobile access gateway in the access network, for identifying the IP flows that needs to be offloaded. This document defines a new mobility option, IP Traffic Offload Selector option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). This option can be used by the local mobility anchor for notifying the flow selectors for that can be used by the local mobility anchor for notifying the mobile access gateway flows that can be offloaded at the access edge. [Ahmad-07] This is a little confusing; sounds as if the notification goes to the flow selectors. What about? "This option can be used by the local mobility anchor to notify the mobile access gateway with the flow selectors that can be offloaded at the access edge." Since, the mobile node's IP address topologically belongs to the home network, the offloaded IP traffic flows need to be NAT [RFC2663] translated. Given this NAT translation requirement for the offloaded traffic, this approach will be limited to mobile node's IPv4 flows. There are better ways to solve this problem for IPv6 and with the goal not to create NAT66 requirement, [Ahmad-08] Can we remove the above sentence? and start the sentence with the following portion. This specification does not support traffic offload support for IPv6 flows. This document also does not define any new semantics for flow selectors. The flow identification and the related semantics are all leveraged from [RFC6088]. 2. Conventions and Terminology 2.1. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2.2. Terminology All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be interpreted as defined in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications [RFC5213] and [RFC5844]. Additionally, this document uses the following abbreviations: IP Flow IP Flow represents a set of IP packets that match a traffic selector. The selector is typically based on the source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination port and other fields in upper layer headers. Selective IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) The approach of selecting specific IP flows and routing them to the local network, as supposed to tunneling them to the home network. NAT (Network Address Translation) Network Address Translation [RFC2663] is a method by which IP addresses are mapped from one address realm to another, providing transparent routing to end hosts. [Ahmad-09] Do we need to include this terminology? 3. Solution Overview The following illustrates the scenario where the mobile access gateway in an access network having the ability to offload some of the IPv4 traffic flows, based on the traffic selectors it received from the local mobility anchor in the home network. For example, all the HTTP flows may be be offloaded at the mobile access gateway and all the other flows for that mobility session are tunneled back to the local mobility anchor. _----_ _( )_ ( Internet ) (_ _) '----' | (IPv4 Traffic Offload Point at access edge gateway for non-essential traffic Ex: HTTP Traffic Offloaded) | ...................................................... | . +----------------+ +---+ . | Operator Value | |NAT| . | Added Services | +---+ . +----------------+ | _----_ | +-----+ _( )_ +-----+ [MN]----| MAG |======( IP )======| LMA |-- Internet +-----+ (_ _) +-----+ '----' ( . . . [Access Network] . [Home Network] ...................................................... Figure 1: Access Networks attached to MAG 3.1. LMA Considerations The following considerations apply to the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway. [Ahmad-10] Is this a common section then? Figure 1 explains the operational sequence of the IP Traffic Offload selectors between the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor. MN MAG(NAT) LMA |------>| | 1. Mobile Node Attach | |------->| 2. Proxy Binding Update | |<-------| 3. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (IPTS Option) | |========| 4. Tunnel/Route Setup | + | 5. Installing the traffic offload rules |------>| | 6. IPv4 packet from mobile node | | | 7. Forwarding rule - Tunnel home/offload | | | Figure 2: Exchange of IP Traffic Offload Selectors o If the received Proxy Binding Update includes the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option Section 4, but if the configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport on the local mobility anchor is set to a value of (0), then the local mobility anchor MUST ignore the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option and process the rest of the packet. This would not have no effect on the operation of the rest of the protocol. o If the received Proxy Binding Update includes the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option Section 4, and if the configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport on the local mobility anchor is set to a value of (1), then the local mobility anchor can construct the traffic selectors based on the offload policy and deliver those selectors in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message using the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option. [Ahmad-11] Why NOT use the following: "the local mobility anchor (identify/or acquire) the traffic selectors based on.... This will encompass the possibility for the LMA to receive the offload policy via a different infrastructure node, e.g., PCRF. Just a suggestion. However, if the received Proxy Binding Update included a proposed Offload traffic selectors, the local mobility anchor MAY choose to honor that request and include the proposed selectors in the reply. 3.2. MAG Considerations o If the configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport on the mobile access gateway is set to a value of (0), then the mobile access gateway MUST NOT include the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option Section 4 in the Proxy Binding Update message that it sends to the local mobility anchor. Otherwise, the option MUST be included in the Proxy Binding Update message. When this option is included, it is an indication to the local mobility anchor that the mobile access gateway is capable of supporting IP Traffic Offload support. The TS format field of the IP Traffic Offload [Ahmad-12] Have we defined what TS before now? Selector Option MUST be set to a value of (0), indicating that the mobile access gateway is not proposing any specific offload policy for that mobility session, but a request to the local mobility anchor to provide the IP traffic offload flow selectors for that mobility session. o The mobility access gateway MAY choose to include its proposed IP traffic offload flow selectors in the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option Section 4. Including this offload traffic spec serves as a [Ahmad-13] "Including this offload traffic selectors serves ..." proposal to the local mobility anchor, which the local mobility anchor can override with its own offload policy, or agree to the proposed policy. When including the offload traffic selectors, the TS format field of the IP Traffic Offload Selector Option MUST be set to the respective flow specification type. o If there is no IP Traffic Offload Selector Option in the corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, that the mobile access gateway receives in response to a Proxy Binding Update, it serves as an indication that the local mobility anchor does not support IP Traffic Offload support for that mobility session, and it implies the local mobility anchor cannot deliver IP flow selectors for that mobility session. The mobility access [Ahmad-14] What the mobility access means here? is that a term that is defined somewhere? upon accepting the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message MUST NOT enable any offload policy for that mobility session. All the mobile node's IP flows MUST be tunneled back to the local mobility anchor. o If there is IP Traffic Offload Selector Option in the corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, it is an indication that the local mobility anchor has provided the IP traffic Offload selectors for that mobility session and the identified IP flows have to be offloaded. Considerations related to (M) flag MUST be applied. [Ahmad-15] what about MAG handling of the TS option in BA when the MAG has not sent it in the BU? I believe this is a valid scenario that needs to be addressed. 4. IP Traffic Offload Selector Option A new mobility option, IP Traffic Offload Selector option, is defined for using it in Proxy Binding Update (PBU) and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA) messages exchanged between a local mobility anchor and a mobile access gateway. [Ahmad-16] "A new mobility option, IP Traffic Offload Selector option, is defined for using it in Proxy Binding Update (PBU) and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (PBA) messages exchanged between a mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor." seems that the draft always mentions LMA first! :-) This option is used for carrying the flow selectors for supporting IP traffic offload function at the mobile access gateway. [Ahmad-17] I think we should use the word enforcing/or enabling rather than supporting for the sentence to read as follows: "This option is used for carrying the flow selectors for enforcing/enabling IP traffic offload function at the mobile access gateway." The alignment requirement for this option is 4n. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M| Reserved | TS Format | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic Selector ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: IP Traffic Offload Selector Option Type <IANA-1> Length 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the option, excluding the type and length fields. Reserved [Ahmad-18] Insert line. This field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. IP Traffic Offload Mode Flag [Ahmad-19] Insert line. This field indicates the offload mode. If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it is an indication that all the flows except the identified IP flow(s) in this mobility option needs to be offloaded at the mobile access gateway. If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (0), it is an indication that the identified IP flow(s) needs to be offloaded at the mobile access gateway and all other IP flows associated with that mobility session needs to be tunneled to the local mobility anchor. [Ahmad-20] We need to add >>some text<< under the MAG consideration to mention that despite the M flag value in the TS Option in the BU, the setting by the LMA in the BA overrides. something like that. TS Format [Ahmad-21] Insert line. An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic Selector Format. The value of "0" is reserved and is used when there are no selectors to carry, relevant when the option is used as a capability indicator. The value of (1) is assigned for IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector [RFC6088]. [Ahmad-22] should not we mention that all other values are reserved? TS Selector [Ahmad-23] Insert line. A variable-length opaque field for including the traffic specification identified by the TS format field. [Ahmad-24] Should not we say: " ... identified by the TS format field and the IP Traffic Offload Mode Flag" Just wondering. the key word here "identified" When the value of TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows is the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in section 3.1 of [RFC6088].
- Re: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Sri Gundavelli
- [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sip… internet-drafts
- [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-s… Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Ahmad Muhanna
- Re: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmip… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] Review of ID: draft-ietf-netext-pmip… pierrick.seite