Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    netext mailing list <netext@ietf.org>,
    netext chair <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6'
  (draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary:

   This document specifies a method to split the Control Plane (CP) and
   User Plane (UP) for a Proxy Mobile IPv6 based network infrastructure.
   Existing specifications allow a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to
   separate its control and user plane using the Alternate Care of
   address mobility option for IPv6, or Alternate IPv4 Care of Address
   option for IPv4.  However, the current specification does not provide
   any mechanism allowing the Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) to perform an
   analogous functional split.  To remedy that shortcoming, this
   document specifies a mobility option enabling a LMA to provide an
   alternate LMA address to be used for the bi-directional user plane
   traffic between the MAG and LMA.  With this new option, a LMA will be
   able to use an IP address for its user plane which is different than
   the IP address used for the control plane.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough? 

This document has sailed through the WG process because the problem
that it aims to solve is clear and has strong consensus among the WG
members. 

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted? 

No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No
vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this specification
either. 
The I-D acknowledges the reviewers who have helped improve the I-D.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Basavaraj Patil
Responsible AD: Brian Haberman

RFC Editor Note