[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RFC 7156

Network Working Group                                            G. Zorn
Internet-Draft                                               Network Zen
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Q. Wu
Expires: January 14, 2013                                         Huawei
                                                              M. Liebsch
                                                                     NEC
                                                             J. Korhonen
                                                                     NSN
                                                           July 13, 2012


        Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
                      draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-14

Abstract

   In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the
   Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically
   tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing.  The term
   "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed
   directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node
   (CN) without involving any LMA.  In order to establish a localized
   routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile
   IPv6 domain, the usage of localized routing may be authorized for
   both MAGs.  This document specifies how to accomplish this using the
   Diameter protocol.

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 January 14, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Solution Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Attribute Value Pair Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  User-Name AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.3.  MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.4.  MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Example Signaling Flows for Localized Routing Service
       Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11




















Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


1.  Introduction

   Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] allows the Mobility Access
   Gateway to optimize media delivery by locally routing packets from a
   Mobile Node to a Correspondent Node that is locally attached to an
   access link connected to the same Mobile Access Gateway, avoiding
   tunneling them to the Mobile Node's Local Mobility Anchor.  This is
   referred to as "local routing" in RFC 5213.  However, this mechanism
   is not applicable to the typical scenarios in which the MN and CN are
   connected to different MAGs and are registered to the same LMA or
   different LMAs.  [RFC6279] defines the problem statement for PMIPv6
   localized routing.  [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr] specifies the PMIPv6
   localized routing protocol based on the scenarios A11, A12, and A21
   [RFC6279].  In these scenarios the information needed to set up a
   localized routing path (e.g., the addresses of the Mobile Access
   Gateways to which the MN and CN are respectively attached) is
   distributed between their respective Local Mobility Anchors.  This
   may complicate the setup and maintenance of localized routing.

   Therefore, in order to establish a localized routing path between the
   two Mobile Access Gateways, the Mobile Node's MAG must obtain the
   address of the Correspondent Node's MAG from the LMA that is managing
   the Correspondent Node's traffic.  In Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6
   [RFC5779], the AAA interactions between an Authentication,
   Authorization and Accounting (AAA) server and the LMA can be used to
   authorize the received Proxy Binding Update from the MAG.  However,
   there is no relevant work discussing how AAA-based mechanisms can be
   used to provide authorization to the Mobile Node's MAG or LMA for
   enabling localized routing.

   This document describes Diameter [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] support
   for the authorization of PMIPv6 mobility entities in case of
   A11,A12,A21 during localized routing.


2.  Terminology

   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].


3.  Solution Overview

   This document addresses how to provide authorization to the Mobile
   Node's MAG or LMA for enabling localized routing and resolve the
   destination MN's MAG by means of interaction between the LMA and the
   AAA server.  Figure 1 shows the reference architecture for Localized



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   Routing Service Authorization.  This reference architecture assumes
   that

   o  If MN and CN belong to different LMAs, MN and CN should share the
      same MAG(e.g., MN1 and CN2 in Figure 1 are attached to the same
      MAG1 and belong to LMA1 and LMA2 respectively ).  Note that LMA1
      and LMA2 in Figure 1 are in the same provider domain (as described
      in [RFC6279]).

   o  If MN and CN are attached to the different MAGs, MN and CN should
      belong to the same LMA (e.g., MN1 and CN3 in theFigure 1 are
      attached to the MAG1 and MAG3 respectively but belong to LMA1 ).

   o  MN and CN may belong to the same LMA and are attached to the same
      MAG,e.g.,MN1 and CN1 in the Figure 1 are both attached to the MAG1
      and belong to LMA1.

   o  The MAG and LMA support Diameter client functionality.


                                             +---------+
                     +---------------------->|  AAA &  |
                     |               +------>| Policy  |
                     |               |       | Profile |
                     |           Diameter    +---------+
                     |               |
                     |   CN's MAG?+--V-+    +----+
                     |   +------->|LMA1|    |LMA2|
                     |   |        +---++    +----+
                     |   |          | |       |
                Diameter |          | +-------+---------
                     |   |          |         |        |
                     |   |          |         |        \\
                     |   |         //        //         \\
                     |  PMIP      //        //           \\
                     |   |       //        //             \\
                     |   |       |         |               |
                     |   +---->+---------------+         +----+
                     |         |     MAG1      |         |MAG3|
                     +-------->+---------------+         +----+
                                 :    :      :              :
                              +---+  +---+  +---+         +---+
                              |MN1|  |CN1|  |CN2|         |CN3|
                              +---+  +---+  +---+         +---+

        Figure 1: Localized Routing Service Authorization Reference
                               Architecture




Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   The interaction of the MAG and LMA with the AAA server according to
   the extension specified in this document is used to authorize the
   localized routing service.


4.  Attribute Value Pair Definitions

   This section describes Attribute Value Pairs (AVPs) defined by this
   specification or re-used from existing specifications in a PMIPv6-
   specific way.

4.1.  User-Name AVP

   The User-Name AVP (AVP Code 1) is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis].  This AVP is used to carry the MN-
   Identifier (Mobile Node identifier) [RFC5213] in the AA-Request (AAR)
   message [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis].

4.2.  PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP

   The PMIP6-IPv4-Home-Address AVP (AVP Code 505) is defined in
   [RFC5779].  This AVP is used to carry the IPv4-MN-HoA (Mobile Node's
   IPv4 home address)[RFC5844] in the AA-Request (AAR) message
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis].

4.3.  MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP

   The MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP (AVP Code 125) is defined in [RFC5779].
   This AVP is used to carry the MN-HNP (Mobile Node's home network
   prefix) in the AAR.

4.4.  MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP

   The MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP is defined in [RFC5447].  This document
   allocates a new capability flag bit according to the IANA rules in
   RFC 5447.

   INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (TBD)

      Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different
      MAGs without involving any LMA is supported.  This bit is used
      with MN-Identifier.  When a MAG or LMA sets this bit in the MIP6-
      Feature-Vector and MN-Identifier corresponding to the Mobile Node
      is carried with this bit, it indicates to the HAAA that the Mobile
      Node associated with this LMA is allowed to use localized routing.
      When a MAG or LMA sets this bit in the MIP6-Feature-Vector and MN-
      Identifiers corresponding to the Mobile Node and Correspondent
      Node are both carried with this bit, it indicates to the HAAA that



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


      localized routing of IP packets between Mobile Node and
      Correspondent Node anchored to different MAGs is supported.  If
      this bit is cleared in the returned MIP6- Feature-Vector AVP, the
      HAAA does not authorize direct routing of packets between MNs
      anchored to the different MAG.  The MAG and LMA MUST support this
      policy feature on a per-MN and per-subscription basis.


5.  Example Signaling Flows for Localized Routing Service Authorization

   Localized Routing Service Authorization can happen during the network
   access authentication procedure [RFC5779] before localized routing is
   initialized.  In this case, the preauthorized pairs of LMA/prefix
   sets can be downloaded to Proxy Mobile IPv6 entities during the RFC
   5779 procedure.  Localized routing can be initiated once the
   destination of a received packet matches one or more of the prefixes
   received during the RFC 5779 procedure.

   Figure 2 shows an example scenario in which MAG1 acts as a Diameter
   client, processing the data packet from MN1 to MN2 and requesting
   authorization of localized routing (i.e.,MAG-Initiated LR
   authorization).  In this example scenario, MN1 and MN2 are attached
   to the same MAG and anchored to the different LMAs (i.e.,A12
   described in [RFC6279]).  In this case, MAG1 knows that MN2 belongs
   to a different LMA (which can be determined by looking up the binding
   cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the
   addresses of LMA1 and LMA2).  In order to setup a localized routing
   path with MAG2, MAG1 acts as Diameter client and sends an AAR message
   to the Diameter server.  The message contains an instance of the
   MIP6-Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
   LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit ([RFC5779],Section 5.5 ) set,two
   instances of the User-Name AVP ([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section
   8.14)containing MN1-Identifier and MN2-Identifier.  In addition, the
   message may contain either an instance of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
   AVP ([RFC5779], Section 5.3) or an instance of the PMIP6-IPv4- Home-
   Address AVP ([RFC5779], Section 5.2) containing the IP address/ HNP
   of MN1.

   The Diameter server authorizes localized routing service by checking
   if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to use localized routing.  If so, the
   Diameter server responds with an AAA message encapsulating an
   instance of the MIP6-Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section
   4.2.5) with the the LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit
   ([RFC5779],Section 5.5) set indicating direct routing of IP packets
   between MNs anchored to the same MAG is supported.  MAG1 then knows
   the localized routing between MN1 and MN2 is allowed.  Then MAG1
   sends the Request messages respectively to LMA1 and LMA2.  The
   request message is the Localized Routing Initialization (LRI) message



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   in Figure 2 and belongs to the Initial phase of the localized
   routing.  LMA1 and LMA2 responds to MAG1 using the Localized Routing
   Acknowledge message (LRA inFigure 2 ) in accordance with
   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].

   In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr],MAG1
   should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
   the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
   maximum of LRI_RETRIES.


      +---+   +---+    +----+    +----+     +---+   +----+
      |MN2|   |MN1|    |MAG1|    |LMA1|     |AAA|   |LMA2|
      +-|-+   +-+-+    +-+--+    +-+--+     +-+-+   +-+--+
        |       |     Anchored     |          |       |
        o---------------------------------------------o
        |       |     Anchored     |          |       |
        |       o------------------o          |       |
        |     Data[MN1->MN2]       |          |       |
        |       |------->|         |          |       |
        |       |        |  AAR(MFV, MN1,MN2) |       |
        |       |        |------------------->|       |
        |       |        |   AAA(MFV, LMA)    |       |
        |       |        |<-------------------|       |
        |       |        |   LRI   |          |       |
        |       |        |-------->|          |       |
        |       |        |         |   LRI    |       |
        |       |        |--------------------------->|
        |       |        |   LRA   |          |       |
        |       |        |<--------|          |       |
        |       |        |         |   LRA    |       |
        |       |        |<---------------------------|

      Figure 2: MAG-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A12

   Figure 3 shows the second example scenario, in which LMA1 acts as a
   Diameter client, processing the data packet from MN2 to MN1 and
   requesting the authorization of localized routing.  In this scenario,
   MN1 and MN2 are attached to the different MAG and anchored to the
   same LMA (i.e., A21 described in [RFC6279] ), LMA knows that MN1 and
   MN2 belong to the same LMA (which can be determined by looking up the
   binding cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the
   addresses of LMA corresponding to MN1 and LMA corresponding to MN2).
   In contrast with the signaling flow shown in Figure 2, it is LMA1
   instead of MAG1 which initiates the setup of the localized routing
   path.

   The Diameter client in LMA1 sends an AA-Request message to the



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   Diameter server.  The message contains an instance of the MIP6-
   Feature-Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
   INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit (Section 4.5) set indicating direct
   routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different MAGs is
   supported and two instances of the User-Name AVP
   ([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section 8.14)containing MN1-Identifier
   and MN2-Identifier.  The Diameter server authorizes the localized
   routing service by checking if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to use
   localized routing.  If so, the Diameter server responds with an AA-
   Answer message encapsulating an instance of the MIP6-Feature-Vector
   (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
   INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit (Section 4.5) set indicating direct
   routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to different MAGs is
   supported.  LMA1 then knows the localized routing is allowed.  In
   success case, LMA1 responds to MAG1 in accordance with
   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].

   In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr],LMA1
   should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
   the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
   maximum of LRI_RETRIES.


            +---+    +----+  +----+     +---+    +----+   +---+
            |MN1|    |MAG1|  |LMA1|     |AAA|    |MAG2|   |MN2|
            +-+-+    +-+--+  +-+--+     +-+-+    +-+--+   +-+-+
              |        |       |         Anchored  |        |
              |     Anchored   o-------------------+--------o
              o--------+-------o Data[MN2->MN1]    |        |
              |        |       |<-----    |        |        |
              |        |       |AAR(MFV,MN1,MN2)   |        |
              |        |       |--------->|        |        |
              |        |       |AAA(MFV,LMA)       |        |
              |        |  LRI  |<---------|        |        |
              |        |<------|        LRI        |        |
              |        |  LRA  |------------------>|        |
              |        |------>|        LRA        |        |
              |        |       |<------------------|        |

      Figure 3: LMA-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A21

   Figure 4 shows another example scenario, in which LMA1 acts as a
   Diameter client, processing the data packet from MN2 to MN1 and
   requesting the authorization of localized routing.  In this scenario,
   MN1 and MN2 are attached to the same MAG and anchored to the same LMA
   (i.e., A11 described in [RFC6279]), LMA knows that MN1 and MN2 belong
   to the same LMA (which can be determined by looking up the binding
   cache entries corresponding to MN1 and MN2 and comparing the



Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   addresses of LMA corresponding to MN1 and LMA corresponding to MN2).

   The Diameter client in LMA1 sends an AA-Request message to the
   Diameter server.  The message contains an instance of the MIP6-
   Feature-Vector AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
   LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit set and two instances of the User-
   Name AVP ([I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section 8.14)containing MN1-
   Identifier and MN2-Identifier.  The Diameter server authorizes the
   localized routing service by checking if MN1 and MN2 are allowed to
   use localized routing.  If so, the Diameter server responds with an
   AA- Answer message encapsulating an instance of the MIP6-Feature-
   Vector (MFV) AVP ([RFC5447], Section 4.2.5) with the
   LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED bit ([RFC5779],Section 5.5) set
   indicating direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the
   same MAG is supported.  LMA1 then knows the localized routing is
   allowed and responds to MAG1 for localized routing in accordance with
   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr].

   In case of LRA_WAIT_TIME expiration [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr], LMA1
   should ask for authorization of localized routing again according to
   the procedure described above before LRI is retransmitted up to a
   maximum of LRI_RETRIES.

                +---+  +---+    +----+  +----+     +---+
                |MN2|  |MN1|    |MAG1|  |LMA1|     |AAA|
                +-+-+  +-+-+    +-+--+  +-+--+     +-|-+
                  |      |     Anchored   |          |
                  o-----------------------o          |
                  |      |     Anchored   |          |
                  |      o--------+-------o Data[MN2->MN1]
                  |      |        |       |<-----    |
                  |      |        |       |AAR(MFV,MN1,MN2)
                  |      |        |       |--------->|
                  |      |        |       |AAA(MFV,LMA)
                  |      |        |  LRI  |<---------|
                  |      |        |<------|          |
                  |      |        |  LRA  |          |
                  |      |        |------>|          |

      Figure 4: LMA-initiated Localized Routing Authorization in A11


6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for the Diameter NASREQ
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis] and Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5779]
   applications are also applicable to this document.




Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   The service authorization solicited by the MAG or the LMA relies upon
   the existing trust relationship between the MAG/LMA and the AAA
   server.

   An authorised MAG could in principle track the movement of any
   participating CNs at the level of the MAG to which they are anchored.
   If such a MAG were compromised, or under the control of a bad-actor,
   then such tracking could represent a privacy breach for the set of
   tracked CNs.  In such a case, the traffic pattern from the
   compromised MAG might be notable so monitoring for e.g. excessive
   queries from MAGs might be worthwhile.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines a new value in the Mobility Capability
   registry [RFC5447] for use with the MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP:
   INTER_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (see Section 4.4).


8.  Contributors

   Paulo Loureiro, Jinwei Xia and Yungui Wang all contributed to early
   versions of this document.


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, Dan
   Romascanu, Elwyn Davies, Basavaraj Patil, Ralph Droms, Stephen
   Farrel, Robert Sparks, Benoit Claise and Abhay Roy for their valuable
   comments and suggestions on this document.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
              Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
              "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-34
              (work in progress), June 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc4005bis]
              Zorn, G., "Diameter Network Access Server Application",
              draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09 (work in progress),
              May 2012.




Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   [I-D.ietf-netext-pmip-lr]
              Krishnan, S., Koodli, R., Loureiro, P., Wu, Q., and A.
              Dutta, "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-10 (work in progress), May 2012.

   [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.

   [RFC5447]  Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C.,
              and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
              Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction",
              RFC 5447, February 2009.

   [RFC5779]  Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna, A.,
              and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access
              Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction with
              Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010.

   [RFC5844]  Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, May 2010.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6279]  Liebsch, M., Jeong, S., and Q. Wu, "Proxy Mobile IPv6
              (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement", RFC 6279,
              June 2011.


Authors' Addresses

   Glen Zorn
   Network Zen
   227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
   Bang Na, Bangkok  10260
   Thailand

   Phone: +66 (0) 87-040-4617
   Email: glenzorn@gmail.com










Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       PMIP6 Localized Routing Support           July 2012


   Qin Wu
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  21001
   China

   Phone: +86-25-84565892
   Email: sunseawq@huawei.com


   Marco Liebsch
   NEC Europe Ltd.
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg,   69115
   Germany

   Email: liebsch@nw.neclab.eu


   Jouni Korhonen
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo FI-02600,
   Finland

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com

























Zorn, et al.            Expires January 14, 2013               [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/