<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [

  <!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>

  <!ENTITY rfc2131 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2131.xml'>  
  
  <!ENTITY rfc2663 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2663.xml'>  

  <!ENTITY rfc6275 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6275.xml'>

  <!ENTITY rfc5101 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5101.xml'>  

  <!ENTITY rfc5844 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5844.xml'>
   
  <!ENTITY rfc5213 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5213.xml'>

  <!ENTITY rfc6088 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6088.xml'>
  
  <!ENTITY rfc6089 PUBLIC '' 
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6089.xml'>  

  
]>


<rfc number="6909" category="std" ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes">
<front>


<title abbrev="IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option">
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
</title>


<author role="editor"  initials="S" surname="Gundavelli" fullname="Sri Gundavelli">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<city>San Jose</city> 
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>sgundave@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>

<author initials="X" surname="Zhou" fullname="Xingyue Zhou">
<organization abbrev="">ZTE Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>No.68 Zijinghua Rd</street>
<city>Nanjing</city> 
<code></code>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>zhou.xingyue@zte.com.cn</email>
</address>
</author>

<author initials="J" surname="Korhonen" fullname="Jouni Korhonen">
<organization abbrev="">Renesas Mobile</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Porkkalankatu 24</street>
<city>Helsinki</city> 
<code>FIN-00180</code>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<email>jouni.nospam@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>


<author initials="G" surname="Feige" fullname="Gaetan Feige">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street> </street>
<city> </city>
<code> </code>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>gfeige@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>



<author initials="R" surname="Koodli" fullname="Rajeev Koodli">
<organization abbrev="">Cisco</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>3650 Cisco Way</street>
<city>San Jose</city> 
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>rkoodli@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>

<date month="April" year="2013" />
<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>NETEXT WG</workgroup>



<!--  SECTION 0:  Abstract                      -->

<abstract>
<t>
This specification defines a new mobility option, the IPv4 Traffic Offload
Selector option, for Proxy Mobile IPv6. 
This option can be used by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access
gateway for negotiating IPv4
traffic offload policy for a mobility session. Based on the negotiated IPv4
traffic offload policy, 
a mobile access gateway can selectively offload some of the IPv4 traffic flows
in the access network instead
of tunneling back to the local mobility anchor in the home network.
</t>

</abstract>
</front>
<middle>







<!--  SECTION 1:  Introduction                  -->


<section anchor="sec:introduction"  title="Introduction">
<t>
Mobile operators are expanding their network coverage by integrating various access technology domains
(e.g., Wireless LAN, CDMA, and Long-Term Evolution (LTE)) into a common IP
mobility core. The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) S2a Proxy Mobile IPv6 <xref target="TS23402"></xref>
reference point, specified by the 3GPP system architecture, defines the protocol interworking for building
such integrated multi-access networks. In this scenario, the mobile node's IP traffic is always
tunneled back from the mobile access gateway <xref target="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.
</t>



<t>
With the exponential growth in 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 need to be routed back to the
home network; 
the traffic that 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. To identify the IP flows that need to be
offloaded, the local mobility anchor in the home network can deliver the IP flow
policy to the mobile access gateway in the access network.
It is up to an operator's discretion to classify the traffic for
offload.
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. 
This specification is only concerned with matching IP traffic
against a given flow selector and classification of IP traffic
for offloading purposes.
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.
</t>



<t>
This document defines a new mobility option, the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector
option (see <xref target="ipts-option"/>), for Proxy
Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). This option can be used by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for negotiating 
IPv4 traffic offload policy for a mobility session. 
This IPv4 traffic offload policy identifies
the flow selectors that can be used for selecting the flows that can be offloaded 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  <xref target="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
translation may not be needed if the mobile access gateway is in the 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 a
NAT66 requirement, this specification therefore 
does not address traffic offload support for IPv6 flows.
</t>




</section>










<!--  SECTION 2: CONVENTIONS & TERMINOLOGY                                      -->

<section anchor="sec:conventions_terminology" title="Conventions and Terminology">




<!--  SECTION 2.1: CONVENTIONS                                                 -->

<section anchor="sec:conventions" title="Conventions">
<t>
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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
</t>
</section> 


<!--  SECTION 2.2: TERMINOLOGY			                               -->

<section anchor="sec:terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>
All the mobility-related terms used in this document are to be interpreted as
defined in the base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications <xref target="RFC5213"/>
<xref target="RFC5844"/>. Additionally, this document uses the following
terms: 
</t>




<t>
IP Flow
</t>

<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t>
IP flow <xref target="RFC5101"/> represents a set of IP packets that match a
traffic selector (TS). The selector is typically based on the source IP
address, destination IP address, source port, destination port, and other
fields in upper-layer headers.

</t>

</list>
</t>



<t>
IP Traffic Offload
</t>

<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t>
IP traffic offload is 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 (e.g., moving some of the traffic from LTE access to WLAN access). 
</t>
</list>
</t>



</section> 

</section> 


<!--  SECTION 3: Protocol Considerations                                       -->


<section anchor="proto-cons" title="Solution Overview">
      
<t>
<xref target="fig1"/> 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
negotiated with 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
typically have to be
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 at the edge of the access network. When the NAT
function is not co-located with the mobile access gateway, offloaded traffic flows must be
delivered through the local access network between the mobile access gateway and the NAT function,
for example, through a VLAN or a point-to-point link.  The exact means for this delivery are outside
the scope of this document. If the offloaded IPv4 flows are for local service access and reverse 
traffic from the local service device can be routed to the mobile node through the mobile access
gateway, the offloaded flows may be delivered directly to a local service device.
</t>


<t>
The traffic selectors in the IPv4 traffic offload policy are used to
classify the traffic, so it can be offloaded at the access network.
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  <xref target="RFC6088"/>.
</t>






<figure anchor='fig1' title="IPv4 Traffic Offload Support at the MAG">
<artwork><![CDATA[
                                _----_                                      
                              _(      )_                  
           :-----------------( Internet )---------------:            
           |                  (_      _)                |        
           |                    '----'                  |
           |                                            |
           :                                            |
(IPv4 Traffic Offload Point)                            |
           :                                            |
           |                                            |
........................................................|....
           |                              |             |
+--------+ |                   +---------------------+  |   
|  Local | |                   | Services requiring  |  |
|Services| |                   | mobility, or service|  |            
+--------+ |                   | treatment           |  |
     |     |                   +---------------------+  |
     |   +---+                            |             |
     |   |NAT|                            |             |
     |   +---+                            |             |
     +-----|            _----_            |             |
        +-----+       _(      )_       +-----+          |   
[MN]----| MAG |======(    IP    )======| LMA |----------   
        +-----+       (_      _)       +-----+  Internet         
                        '----'                   		    
                           .
                           .
    [Access Network]       .        [Home Network]
..........................................................
]]></artwork>
</figure>




<t>
<xref target="fig2"/> explains the operational sequence of the Proxy Mobile IPv6
protocol signaling message exchange between the mobile access gateway (MAG) and the
local mobility anchor (LMA) 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.  The
use of IPv4 Traffic Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update is for allowing
the MAG to request the LMA for the IPv4 traffic offload policy. 
</t>

<figure anchor="fig2"  title="Exchange of IPv4 Traffic Offload Selectors">
<artwork><![CDATA[
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.  Offload rule applied (Tunnel/offload) 
|       |        | 
]]> </artwork>
</figure>





<!--  SECTION 3.1:  IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option  -->

<section title="IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option" anchor="ipts-option">
<t>
A new mobility option, the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (53), is defined for
use 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 carrying the IPv4 traffic offload policy. This policy
identifies the IPv4 traffic flow selectors that can be used by the mobile access
gateway for enforcing the offload policy.
</t>

<t>
The alignment requirement for this option is 4n.
</t>

<figure anchor='fig3' title="IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector Option" >
<artwork><![CDATA[
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   ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure> 


<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Type"><vspace blankLines="0" />53</t>

<t hangText="Length"><vspace blankLines="0" />
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length in octets of the option,
excluding the type and length fields. 
</t>


<t hangText="Offload Mode (M) Flag"><vspace blankLines="0" />
This field indicates the offload mode. 

<list>
<t>
If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (0), it is an  indication that the
IPv4 flow(s) that match the traffic selectors in the Traffic Selector sub-option
<xref target="RFC6089"/> 
and that are associated to that  mobility session have to be offloaded at the
mobile access gateway. All the other IPv4 flows associated with that mobility
session and not matching the traffic selectors have to be tunneled to the local
mobility anchor.
</t>

<t>
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
IPv4 flow(s) matching the traffic selectors in the Traffic Selector sub-option 
have to be offloaded at the mobile access gateway. All the IPv4 flows
associated with that mobility session and matching the traffic selectors
have to be tunneled back to the local mobility anchor.
</t>
</list>
</t>


<t hangText="Reserved"><vspace blankLines="0" />
This field is unused for now. The value MUST be initialized to 0 by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
</t>

<t hangText="Traffic Selector Sub-option"><vspace blankLines="0" />
The Traffic Selector sub-option includes the parameters used to match packets for a specific flow
binding. This is an optional sub-option when the IPv4 Traffic Selector option is carried in a 
Proxy Binding Update message but is a mandatory sub-option when the IPv4 Traffic Selector option
is carried in a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. The format of the Traffic Selector sub-option
is defined in Section 4.2.1.4 of <xref target="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 <xref target="RFC6088"/> and are repeated here for completeness.  When
the value of the TS Format field is set to (1), the format that follows is the IPv4 binary traffic selector
specified in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC6088"/>, and that support is mandatory for this specification.
The text specified in this section takes precedence over what is specified in  <xref target="RFC6088"/>
and <xref target="RFC6089"/>.
<list>
<t>
1: IPv4 binary traffic selector
</t>

<t>
2: IPv6 binary traffic selector (not used by this specification) 
</t>

</list>


</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>






<!--  SECTION 3.2: MAG Considerations                                       -->


<section anchor="mag-cons" title="MAG Considerations">
<t>
<list style="symbols">


<t> 
If the  mobile access gateway is configured to enable IPv4 traffic offload support, then it
includes the  IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (<xref target="ipts-option"/>)  in the Proxy Binding
Update message that it sends to the local mobility anchor. Optionally, the mobile access gateway can
also propose a specific offload policy.


<list style="symbols">
<t>
The mobile access gateway MAY choose not to propose any specific IPv4 traffic offload policy 
but request the local mobility anchor for the offload policy.  In this scenario, the 
IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option that is carried in the Proxy Binding Update message 
does not include the Traffic Selector sub-option (see <xref target="ipts-option"/>), 
and the (M) flag (see <xref target="ipts-option"/>) in the option MUST be set to a value of (0).
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 makes a request
to the local mobility anchor to provide the offload policy.
</t>



<t>
The mobile access gateway MAY choose to propose a specific IPv4 traffic offload policy by including
the Traffic Selector sub-option in the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option
(see <xref target="ipts-option"/>). 
The specific details on how the mobile access gateway obtains the mobile node's
IPv4 traffic offload policy are outside the scope of this document. 
When this offload policy is included in the Proxy Binding Update message, it serves as a proposal to the
local mobility anchor. The local mobility anchor can override with its own
offload policy, or it can agree to
the proposed policy. The offload policy has to be translated to a set of selectors that can be used to
match the mobile node's IP flows, and these selectors have to be carried in the Traffic Selector sub-option. 
The Traffic Selector sub-option  MUST be constructed as specified in Section 4.2.1.4 of <xref target="RFC6089"/>. 
This sub-option includes a TS Format field, which identifies the format of the flow specification
included in the sub-option. The values for that field and the corresponding message format are defined in Section
3.1 of <xref target="RFC6088"/>. Considerations from  <xref target="ipts-option"/> apply with respect to setting
the Offload Mode (M) flag.
</t>
</list>
</t>


<t>
When sending a Proxy Binding Update either for Binding Lifetime Extension or for Binding De-Registration, the 
mobile access gateway SHOULD copy the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option from the initial Proxy Binding Update 
message.  Considerations from Sections 6.9.1.3 and 6.9.1.4 of <xref target="RFC5213"/> MUST be applied.
</t>


<t>
If the  mobile access gateway is not configured to support IPv4 traffic offload support as specified
in this specification, but if the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message has the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option, then the mobile access gateway MUST ignore the option and process the
rest of the message as per <xref target="RFC5213"/>.
</t>

<t>
If there is no IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message received
from the local mobility anchor, it is an indication that the local mobility anchor did not enable IPv4 traffic
offload support for that mobility session. Upon accepting the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
message, the mobile access gateway SHOULD NOT enable IPv4 traffic offload support for that mobility session.
</t>


<t>
If there is an IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, then the mobile
access gateway SHOULD enable IPv4 traffic offload support for that mobility session. The mobility access
gateway has to provision the data plane using the flow selectors present in the Traffic Selector sub-option.
The IPv4 flows matching the flow selectors have to be offloaded or tunneled back based to the local mobility
anchor based on the value of the Offload Mode (M) flag (see <xref target="ipts-option"/>).
</t>


</list>
</t>

</section>








<!--  SECTION 3.3: LMA Considerations                                       -->


<section anchor="lma-cons" title="LMA Considerations"> 


<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>
If the received Proxy Binding Update message does not include the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option
(<xref target="ipts-option"/>), then the local mobility anchor MUST NOT enable IPv4 traffic offload
support for that mobility session, and the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message that will be sent in
response MUST NOT contain the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option.
</t>

<t>
If the Proxy Binding Update message includes the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option, but the
local mobility anchor is not configured to support IPv4 traffic offload support, then the local mobility
anchor will ignore the option and process the rest of the message as per <xref target="RFC5213"/>.  This
would have no effect on the operation of the rest of the protocol.
</t>


<t>
If the Proxy Binding Update message has the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option and if the local
mobility anchor is configured to support IPv4 traffic offload support, then the local mobility anchor MUST
enable IPv4 traffic offload support for that mobility session. The Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message
that will be sent in response MUST include the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option. The following
considerations apply with respect to constructing the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option.


<list style="symbols">
<t>
The local mobility anchor can obtain the offload policy from the local configuration store or from a network
function such as AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) or PCRF
(Policy and Charging Rule
Function). The offload policy has to be translated to a set of selectors that can be used to match 
the mobile node's IP flows, and these selectors have to be carried in the Traffic Selector sub-option. The
Traffic Selector sub-option MUST be constructed as specified in Section 4.2.1.4 of <xref target="RFC6089"/>.
Considerations from <xref target="ipts-option"/> apply with respect to the
Offload Mode (M) flag setting.
</t>


<t>
If the Proxy Binding Update message includes a specific IPv4 traffic offload
policy proposal in the form of the Traffic
Selector sub-option  <xref target="RFC6089"/>,  then the local mobility anchor MAY choose to agree to that
request by including the same IPv4 traffic offload policy in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. This implies
the local mobility anchor has agreed to the IPv4 traffic offload policy
provided by the mobile access gateway. The
local mobility anchor MAY also choose to override the request by including a different IPv4 traffic offload policy
that it wants the mobile access gateway to enforce for that mobility session. This is entirely based on the policy 
configuration on the local mobility anchor.
</t>


<t>
The IPv4 traffic offload policy that is sent to the mobile access gateway has to be specific to the mobility session
identified using the Mobile Node Identifier option <xref target="RFC5213"/>.  The offload policy MUST be specific
to a mobile node's application traffic. The traffic selectors have to match only the mobile node's application traffic
and MUST NOT match any other mobile node's IP traffic. 
Furthermore, control-plane traffic such as DHCP, Neighbor Discovery
(ND), or any other IP traffic that is used for IP address
configuration, mobility management, or other control-plane functions
MUST NOT be subject to offload.
</t>

<t>
The local mobility anchor MUST NOT make any changes to the mobile node's offload policy during the middle of a mobility 
session, as long as the mobile node continues to attach to the mobile access gateway that negotiated the offload policy. 
However, when the mobile node performs an inter-MAG handover, the new mobile access gateway may not be capable of supporting 
IP Traffic offload and in this scenario, the offload policy may change. Therefore, the IPv4 Traffic Selector option with the 
Traffic Selector sub-option that is delivered during the initial mobility signaling MUST be the same as the one that is 
delivered as part of the mobility signaling related to lifetime extension from the same mobile access gateway. 

</t>

</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>

</section>








<!--  SECTION 4: Protocol Configuration Variables      	-->

<section title="Protocol Configuration Variables" anchor="sec-pvars">
<t>
This specification defines the following configuration variable that controls
the IPv4 traffic offload support feature. This configuration variable is 
internal to the system and has no bearing on interoperability across different
implementations.
</t>

<t>
The mobility entities, local mobility anchor, and the mobile access gateway have
to allow these variables to  be configured by the system management. The configured
values for these protocol variables have to survive server reboots and service
restarts.
</t>


<t>
<list style='hanging'>

<t hangText="EnableIPv4TrafficOffloadSupport">
<list>
<t>
This flag indicates whether or not IPv4 traffic offload support needs to be enabled.
This configuration variable is available at both the mobile access gateway and
the local mobility anchor. The default value for this flag is set to (0), indicating
that IPv4 traffic offload support is disabled.
</t>

<t>
When this flag on the mobile access gateway is set to a value of (1), the mobile
access gateway has to enable IPv4 traffic offload support for all mobility sessions,
by specifically requesting 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 has to 
disable IPv4 traffic offload support for all mobility sessions.
</t>

<t>
Similarly, when this flag on the local mobility anchor is set to a value of (1),
the local mobility anchor has to enable IPv4 traffic offload support. If
the local mobility anchor chooses to enable IPv4 traffic offload support when there
is an offload policy specified for a mobile node, it has to 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.
</t>

</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>

</section>





<!--  SECTION 5:  IANA Considerations           -->

<section anchor="sec:iana"  title="IANA Considerations">
<t>
Per this specification, IANA has assigned a new mobility option: the IPv4 Traffic
Offload Selector option (53). This option is described in <xref target="ipts-option"/>.
The Type value for this option has been assigned from the same numbering 
space as allocated for the other mobility options <xref target="RFC6275"/>.
</t>

</section>









<!--  SECTION 6:  Security Considerations      	-->

<section anchor="sec:secons"  title="Security Considerations">
<t>
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 <xref target="RFC5213"/>. Therefore, it inherits from <xref target="RFC5213"/>
its security guidelines and does not require any additional security
considerations. Carrying IPv4 traffic offload selectors does not introduce any new
security vulnerabilities.
</t>


<t>
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, which essentially introduces certain
vulnerabilities that are common to any NAT deployment. These vulnerabilities
and the related considerations have been well documented in the NAT
specification <xref target="RFC2663"/>. There are no additional considerations
above and beyond what has already been documented by the NAT specifications and
that are unique to the approach specified in this document.
</t>


<t>
The mobile node's home network may be equipped with firewall and other security devices to 
guard against any security threats. When IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled, it 
potentially exposes the mobile node to some security risks in the access
network. 
This threat can be mitigated by deploying the security features
both in the access network and in the home network.
</t>

<t>
When IPv4 traffic offload support is enabled for a mobile node, some of the IP flows
are sent through the home network, and some other IP flows are routed through the access network.
This potentially  introduces some complexity with respect to enabling diagnostics or monitoring
on the user traffic. The tools that are used for such diagnostics have to be aware of the
offload policy that in enabled in the network.
</t>


</section>






<!--  SECTION 7:  Acknowledgements     			-->

<section anchor="sec:ack" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>
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 Leiba, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick,
Wesley Eddy, Mary Barnes, Vincent Roca, Ralph Droms, Scott Bradner, Stephen Farrell,
Adrian Farrel, Benoit Claise, and Brian Haberman for all the reviews and
discussions related to the topic of IPv4 traffic offload.
</t>

</section>


</middle>
<back>











<!--  SECTION 8:  Normative References		-->

<references title="Normative References">
&rfc2119;
&rfc5213;
&rfc5844;
&rfc6088;
&rfc6089;
&rfc6275;
</references>






<!--  SECTION 9:  Informative References		-->

<references title="Informative References">
&rfc2663;
&rfc5101;

<reference anchor="TS23402">
<front>
<title>
Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses
</title>
<author fullname="3GPP TS 23.402">
<organization>3GPP</organization>
</author>
<date year="2010" />
</front>
</reference>

</references>


</back>
</rfc>
