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

Ahmad Muhanna <ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 06:17 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 0C14921F84F2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 41je4it04XL2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FFF21F84E7 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7B6HlNL013125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:17:48 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.36]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:17:47 -0400
From: Ahmad Muhanna <ahmad.muhanna@ericsson.com>
To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:17:45 -0400
Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option
Thread-Index: AQHMV6e2nRIxJbBIkkC03uyU0YByhpUXLQfw
Message-ID: <1FCAE7B6027FE3489B8497A060C704C4394B1323B2@EUSAACMS0714.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <CA6867A8.1CF3A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA6867A8.1CF3A%basavaraj.patil@nokia.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: 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, 11 Aug 2011 06:17:18 -0000

Hello Raj,
Here is my support for this draft.

1. YES
2. YES

Regards,
Ahmad
-----Original Message-----
From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:52 PM
To: netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] Consensus call: Adopt selective IPv4 offloading feature as specified in I-D draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option


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