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

Behcet,

This is the Netext WG which is responsible for working on extensions to
the network based mobility protocol, I.e PMIP6.
The proposal to offload IPv4 flows from the MAG was presented at IETF81
and there is WG interest in solving this problem. We are not trying to
develop protocols and extensions to PMIP6 that are comparable to MIP6 just
to be on par. The extension and feature would be taken up if it makes
sense.

I have asked for consensus on 3 topics. Prefix delegation is one of them.
I don¹t understand what you mean when you say 'NEMO-PD is somehow stuck
between the two".

-Raj

On 8/11/11 10:21 AM, "ext Behcet Sarikaya" <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Hi Raj,
>  Can I ask why we need to work on this (SIPTO), and QoS for PMIPv6?
>Do we have a charter item?
>Does MIPv6 support them  so that we can justify saying that we want to be
>at par?
>
>I notice that NEMO-PD has somehow been stuck into the above two?
>
>Regards,
>
>Behcet
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>