NETEXT WG S. Gundavelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track X. Zhou
Expires: July 13, 2013 ZTE Corporation
J. Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
G. Feige
R. Koodli
Cisco
January 9, 2013
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-08.txt
Abstract
This specification defines a traffic offload mechanism and a related
mobility option for carrying IPv4 Offload traffic selectors between a
mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor in a Proxy Mobile
IPv6 domain. Based on the negotiated IPv4 traffic offload flow
selectors with the local mobility anchor, a mobile access gateway can
enable offload traffic rule on the selected IPv4 flows.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. LMA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. MAG Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Protocol Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
1. Introduction
Mobile Operators are expanding their network coverage by integrating
various access technology domains (Ex: Wireless LAN, CDMA, LTE) into
a common IP mobility core. The 3GPP S2a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [TS23402]
reference point, specified by the 3GPP system architecture defines
the protocol inter-working for building such integrated multi-access
network. In this scenario, 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. Currently,
there is no mechanism for allowing some of the subscriber's IP flows
to be offloaded in the access network.
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. The offload is intended either for
local service access in the access network, or for internet offload
through the access network when there is an internet peering point.
Not all IP traffic flows 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 allows efficient usage of the mobile packet
core which helps in lowering transport costs. The local mobility
anchor in the home network can deliver the IP flow policy to the
mobile access gateway in the access network, for identifying the IP
flows that need to be offloaded. It's a policy decision as to which
traffic an operator deems as non-essential. One operator might
choose to offload everything except traffic (such as Voice over IP)
that requires QoS services. Another might choose to offload only
HTTP traffic. From the point of view of this specification, it is
only about IPv4 traffic matching a given flow selector and
classification for offload. This approach has one limitation with
respect to identifying encrypted traffic: IPsec encrypted traffic
with no visibility into the application payload cannot be selected
for offload.
This document defines a new mobility option, IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option Section 4 for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). This
option can be used by the local mobility anchor for delivering the
IPv4 traffic offload policy associated with a mobility session to the
mobile access gateway. This IPv4 traffic offload policy identifies
the flow selectors that can used for selecting the flows for
offloading them at the access edge. Since, the mobile node's IP
address topologically belongs to the home network, the offloaded IPv4
traffic flows may need to be NAT [RFC2663] translated. These
offloaded flows will not have mobility support as the NAT becomes the
anchor point for those flows. However, when the traffic is offloaded
for local service access as opposed to internet offload, NAT
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
translation may not be needed, if the mobile access gateways is in
path for the return traffic. The decision on when to apply NAT
translation can be based on local configuration on the mobile access
gateway. There are better ways to address the offload problem for
IPv6 and with the goal not to create NAT66 requirement, this
specification therefore does not support traffic offload support for
IPv6 flows. An IPv6 enabled mobile node can be assigned multiple
IPv6 prefixes, some from the access network and the other from the
home network. If there is proper prefix coloring marking in the
Router Advertisement messages, which allows the mobile node to
identify the IPv6 prefix assigned from the local access network, the
mobile node can choose to use an address from that prefix for IP
traffic flows that require offload. There is active work
[I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
[I-D.korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties] in IETF for addressing the
prefix coloring related enhancements. This document also does not
define any new semantics for flow selectors. The flow identification
and the related semantics are all leveraged from [RFC6088] and
[RFC6089].
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 terms:
IP Flow
IP Flow [RFC5101] 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.
IP Traffic Offload
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
The approach of selecting specific IP flows and routing them
through the access network, instead of tunneling them to the home
network. Offload can also be between two access networks
(Example: moving some of the traffic from LTE access to WLAN
access).
3. Solution Overview
The following Figure 1 illustrates the scenario where the mobile
access gateway in an access network has enabled IPv4 traffic offload
support for a mobility session. The offload decision is based on the
IPv4 traffic offload policy that it received from the local mobility
anchor in the home network. For example, all the HTTP flows may be
offloaded at the mobile access gateway and all the other flows for
that mobility session are tunneled back to the local mobility anchor.
The offloaded flows have to be typically NAT translated and this
specification does not impose any restrictions on the location of the
NAT function. It is possible for the NAT function to be co-located
with the mobile access gateway or located somewhere in the edge of
the access network. When the NAT is not co-located on the mobile
access gateway, the NAT function should have the ability to identify
the offloaded IP traffic for NAT policy enforcement. This could be
achieved by configuring a specific VLAN between the mobile access
gateway and the NAT device and ensuring all the traffic on that VLAN
is NAT translated. This can also be achieved through other means and
the details are outside the scope of this document. It is also to be
noted that the NAT translation is not required if the offloaded IPv4
flows are for local service access.
The IPv4 traffic selectors that are delivered to the mobile access
gateway can be used to classify the traffic, so it can be offloaded
to the access network. The parameters in the IP traffic selectors
can be used to match against the header fields in the data packets.
These parameters include Source IP address, Destination IP address,
TCP/UDP Port numbers, and other fields. The format of the IPv4
Binary Traffic Selector is specified in section 3.1 of [RFC6088].
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
_----_
_( )_
:-----------------( Internet )---------------:
| (_ _) |
| '----' |
| |
: |
(IPv4 Traffic Offload Point) |
: |
| |
........................................................|....
| | |
+--------+ | +---------------------+ |
| Local | | | Services requiring | |
|Services| | | mobility, or service| |
+--------+ | | treatment | |
| | +---------------------+ |
| +---+ | |
| |NAT| | |
| +---+ | |
+-----| _----_ | |
+-----+ _( )_ +-----+ |
[MN]----| MAG |======( IP )======| LMA |----------
+-----+ (_ _) +-----+ Internet
'----'
.
.
[Access Network] . [Home Network]
..........................................................
Figure 1: IPv4 Traffic Offload Support at the MAG
Figure 2 explains the operational sequence of the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol signaling message exchange between the mobile access gateway
and the local mobility anchor for negotiating the IPv4 Traffic
Offload selectors. The details related to DHCP transactions, or
Router Advertisements on the access link are not shown here as that
is not the key focus of this specification.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
MN MAG(NAT) LMA
|------>| | 1. Mobile Node Attach
| |------->| 2. Proxy Binding Update (IPv4TS)
| |<-------| 3. Proxy Binding Acknowledgement (IPv4TS)
| |========| 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 IPv4 Traffic Offload Selectors
3.1. LMA Considerations
The following considerations apply to the local mobility anchor.
o If the configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport
(Section 6) on the local mobility anchor is set to a value of (0),
then the local mobility anchor SHOULD NOT include the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option (Section 4) in the Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement message. It MUST ignore any IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option present in the received Proxy Binding Update and
process the rest of the message as per [RFC5213]. This would have
no effect on the operation of the rest of the protocol.
o If the received Proxy Binding Update includes the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option (Section 4), and if the configuration
variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport (Section 6) on the local
mobility anchor is set to a value of (1), then the local mobility
anchor can acquire the offload policy from a network function (Ex:
AAA, or PCRF (Policy Charging and Rules Function)) and can
construct the traffic selectors based on the offload policy and
deliver that traffic offload policy in the Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement message using the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector
option. The specific details on how the offload policy for a
mobile node is provisioned on the local mobility anchor is out of
the scope for this document. However, if the received Proxy
Binding Update included a proposed Offload traffic policy, the
local mobility anchor MAY choose to honor that request and reflect
the proposed selectors in the reply, or may override them by
sending its traffic selectors in the reply message.
o If the received Proxy Binding Update does not include the IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option (Section 4), and if the
configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport (Section 6)
on the local mobility anchor is set to a value of (1), then the
local mobility anchor SHOULD NOT include the IP Traffic Offload
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
Selector option in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement.
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 SHOULD NOT include the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option (Section 4) in the Proxy Binding Update message
that it sends to the local mobility anchor.
o If the configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport on
the mobile access gateway is set to a value of (1), then the
mobile access gateway SHOULD include the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option (Section 4) in the Proxy Binding Update message.
The following considerations apply with respect to including the
Traffic Selector Sub-option in the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector
option.
* The mobile access gateway MAY choose not to propose any
specific IPv4 traffic offload policy. In that scenario, there
MUST NOT be any Traffic Selector sub-option in the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option. Including the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update without the Traffic
Selector Sub-option serves as an indication that the mobile
access gateway is not proposing any specific offload policy for
that mobility session, but rather it indicates a request to the
local mobility anchor to provide the IPv4 traffic offload flow
selectors for that mobility session. The (M) flag Section 4 in
the option MUST be set to value of (0).
* The mobile access gateway MAY choose to propose a specific IPv4
traffic offload policy to the LMA by including the Traffic
Selector sub-option in the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option
Section 4. This IPv4 traffic offload policy may be locally
configured at the mobile access gateway, or may have been
obtained from the AAA. When this policy is included in the
Proxy Binding Update message, it serves as a proposal to the
local mobility anchor, which the local mobility anchor can
override with its own offload policy, or agree to the proposed
policy that it received from the mobile access gateway. When
including the offload traffic selectors, the Traffic Selector
sub-option MUST be constructed as specified section 4.2.1.4 of
[RFC6089]. This sub-option includes a Traffic Selector Format
field, which identifies the format of the flow specification
included in that sub-option. The values for that field and the
corresponding message format are defined in section 3.0 of
[RFC6088]
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
o Lack of a IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the
corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message received by
the mobile access gateway in response to a Proxy Binding Update
indicates that the local mobility anchor did not enable IPv4
Traffic Offload support for that mobility session, and hence the
local mobility anchor did not deliver IPv4 flow selectors for that
mobility session. The mobile access gateway upon accepting the
Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message MUST NOT enable any IPv4
traffic offload support for that mobility session. All the mobile
node's IPv4 flows MUST be tunneled back to the local mobility
anchor.
o If there is an IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the
corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, the mobile
access gateway SHOULD enable the IPv4 traffic offload support for
that mobility session. It MUST process the Traffic Selector Sub-
option for the flow selectors.
* If the (M) flag of the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in
the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement is set to a value
(0), then the mobile access gateway SHOULD offload all the
mobile node's IPv4 flows identified using the flow selectors
present in the Traffic Selector Sub-option. The mobile access
gateway SHOULD tunnel all other mobile node's IPv4 flows to the
local mobility anchor.
* If the (M) flag of the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in
the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement is set to a value
(1), then the mobile access gateway SHOULD offload all the
mobile node's IPv4 flows, except the IPv4 flows identified
using the flow selectors present in the Traffic Selector Sub-
option.
o If the configuration variable EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport is set
to a value of (0) and the mobile access gateway has not included
the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding
Update, but has received a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message
that has the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option, then the mobile
access gateway SHOULD ignore the option and process the rest of
the message as per [RFC5213].
4. IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option
A new mobility option, IPv4 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. This option is used for
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
carrying the IPv4 traffic offload policy. This policy identifies the
IPv4 traffic flow selectors that can be used by the IPv4 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Selector Sub-option ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IPv4 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
This field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to 0
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Offload Mode Flag
This field indicates the offload mode.
If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (0), it is an
indication that the identified IPv4 flow(s) in this mobility
option SHOULD be offloaded at the mobile access gateway and all
other IPv4 flows associated with that mobility session need to
be tunneled to the local mobility anchor.
If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it is an
indication that all the IPv4 flows associated to that mobility
session except the identified IPv4 flow(s) in the Traffic
Selector sub-option that follows SHOULD be offloaded at the
mobile access gateway.
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
Traffic Selector Sub-option
The traffic selector sub-option includes the parameters used to
match packets for a specific flow binding. The traffic selector
sub-option includes the parameters used to match packets for a
specific flow binding. The format of the Traffic Selector sub-
option is defined in section 4.2.1.4 of [RFC6089]. This sub-
option includes a TS Format field, which identifies the format of
the flow specification included in that sub-option. The values
for that field are defined in section 3 of [RFC6089] and are
repeated here for completeness. 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] and that support is
mandatory for this specification.
1: IPv4 binary traffic selector.
2: IPv6 binary traffic selector (Not used by this
specification)
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the following IANA action.
o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, IPv4
Traffic Offload Selector option. This option is described in
Section 4. The Type value for this option needs to be assigned
from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
options [RFC6275].
o RFC Editor: please replace <IANA-1> in Section 4 with the assigned
value, and update this section accordingly.
6. Protocol Configuration Variables
This specification defines the following configuration variable that
controls the IPv4 Traffic Offload support feature. The mobility
entities, local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway MUST
allow these variables to be configured by the system management. The
configured values for these protocol variables MUST survive server
reboots and service restarts.
EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
This flag indicates whether or not IPv4 Traffic Offload support
needs to be enabled. This configuration variable is available
at both in the mobile access gateway and at the local mobility
anchor. The default value for this flag is set to (0),
indicating that the support for IPv4 Traffic offload support is
disabled.
When this flag on the mobile access gateway is set to a value
of (1), the mobile access gateway MUST enable the IPv4 Traffic
offload support for all mobility sessions, specifically it MUST
request the IPv4 traffic offload policy from the local mobility
anchor by including the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in
the Proxy Binding Update message. If the flag is set to a
value of (0), the mobile access gateway SHOULD NOT enable IPv4
Traffic Offload support for any mobility session. It SHOULD
NOT include the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the
Proxy Binding Update.
Similarly, when this flag on the local mobility anchor is set
to a value of (1), the local mobility anchor MUST enable
support for IPv4 Traffic offload support. When the local
mobility anchor chooses to enable IPv4 Traffic offload support
and if there is offload flow policy specified for a mobile
node, it SHOULD deliver the IPv4 traffic offload policy to the
mobile access gateway by including the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.
7. Security Considerations
The IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option defined in this
specification is for use in Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding
Acknowledgement messages. This option is carried like any other
mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore it
inherits from [RFC5213] its security guidelines and does not require
any additional security considerations. Carrying IPv4 traffic
offload selectors does not introduce any new security
vulnerabilities.
When IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled for a mobile node, the
mobile access gateway selectively offloads some of the mobile node's
IPv4 traffic flows to the access network. Typically, these offloaded
flows get NAT translated and essentially that introduces certain
vulnerabilities which are common to any NAT deployment. These
vulnerabilities and the related considerations have been well
documented in the NAT specification [RFC2663]. There are no
additional considerations above and beyond what has already been
documented by the NAT specifications and which are unique to the
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
approach specified in this document.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ahmad Muhanna, Basavaraj Patil,
Carlos Bernardos, Eric Voit, Frank Brockners, Hidetoshi Yokota, Marco
Liebsch, Mark Grayson, Pierrick Seite, Ryuji Wakikawa, Steve Wood,
Barry Lieba, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick, Wesley Eddy, Mary Barnes,
Vincent Roca, Ralph Droms, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell, Adrian
Farrell, Benoit Claise and Brian Haberman for all the draft reviews
and discussions related to the topic of IPv4 traffic offload.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.
[RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
"Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088,
January 2011.
[RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G.,
and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and
Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089,
January 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
Systems, C., Halwasia, G., Bandi, S., Gundavelli, S.,
Deng, H., and L. Thiebaut, "DHCPv6 class based prefix",
draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[I-D.korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties]
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P., and D.
Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Mobility Management Properties",
draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-03 (work in
progress), October 2012.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[TS23402] 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
2010.
Authors' Addresses
Sri Gundavelli (editor)
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: sgundave@cisco.com
Xingyue Zhou
ZTE Corporation
No.68 Zijinghua Rd
Nanjing
China
Email: zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn
Jouni Korhonen
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo FIN-02600
Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option January 2013
Gaetan
Cisco
France
Email: gfeige@cisco.com
Rajeev Koodli
Cisco
3650 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: rkoodli@cisco.com
Gundavelli, et al. Expires July 13, 2013 [Page 15]