[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Internet Area WG                                          Praveen Muley
Internet Draft                                           Wim Henderickx
Intended status: Informational                                    Nokia
Expires: April 30, 2019                                      Geng Liang
                                                           China Mobile
                                                                Hans Liu
                                                             D-Link Corp
                                                          Loris Cardullo
                                                         Jonathan Newton
                                                                Vodafone
                                                            SungHoon Seo
                                                           Korea Telecom
                                                           Sagiv Draznin
                                                        Verizon Wireless
                                                         Basavaraj Patil
                                                                    AT&T
                                                       October 22, 2018



             Network based Bonding solution for Hybrid Access
            draft-muley-network-based-bonding-hybrid-access-03


Abstract

   In order to address increasing bandwidth demands, operators are
   considering bundling of multiple heterogeneous access networks
   (Hybrid access) for residential and enterprise customers. This
   document describes a solution for Hybrid access and covers the use
   case scenarios.

Requirements Language

   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].

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/.



Muley et al.            Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   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 April 30, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (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. Reference Architecture.........................................4
   4. Network Based Bonding Solution Overview........................5
      4.1. Separate BNG and PGW......................................5
      4.2. Integrated BNG and SGW/PGW................................6
   5. HAG Function...................................................7
      5.1. Address Assignment........................................7
         5.1.1. Separate BNG and PGW.................................7
         5.1.2. Integrated BNG and SGW/PGW...........................8
      5.2. Setup and Tunnel Management...............................9
      5.3. Traffic distribution policies............................10
      5.4. Path Management..........................................11
      5.5. Backward compatibility...................................12
   6. Applicability in Mobile networks..............................12
   7. Inter-working with MP-TCP.....................................14
   8. Security Considerations.......................................14
   9. IANA considerations...........................................15
   10. References...................................................15
      10.1. Normative References....................................15
      10.2. Informative References..................................15
   11. Acknowledgments..............................................16


<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018



1. Introduction

   To address the increasing demand of bandwidth by residential and
   enterprise customers, operators are looking for alternatives that
   can avoid rebuilding of the existing fixed access networks.
            In Hybrid Access network, a Customer Premise Equipment
   (CPE) is connected to heterogeneous access networks (e.g. DSL, LTE
   etc) simultaneously. Traffic is distributed in flexible manner over
   these heterogeneous links thus increasing the bandwidth capacity of
   a residential or an enterprise customer.
             This document describes a solution to implement the
   network based bonding Hybrid Access architecture. The solution is
   generic enough that it is applicable to fixed as well mobile nodes
   with multiple Access technologies.

2. Terminology

   All mobility related terms are to be interpreted as defined in
   [RFC5213] and [RFC5844]. Additionally, this document uses the
   following terms

   IFOM     IP flow mobility

   NB-IFOM  Network based IFOM

   ePDG     Evolved Packet Data Gateway (defined in 3GPP [24.302])

   RR       Routing Rule

   HAG      Hybrid Access Gateway

   PcRF     Policy and Charging Rules Function

   NBF      Network based Bonding Function

   MCP      Multi-path conversion point (defined in [NAMPTCP])










<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


3. Reference Architecture


      +----+                   ------
      |    |                /          \
      |HOST|     +-----+   |  Wireless  +-----\+-----+
      |    +-----+     | +-+    3G/4G   |      |     |       *****
      +----+ Wireless  +-+  \          /       |     |     **     **
                 |     |       ------          |     |    *         *
      +----+     | CPE |                       | HAG +---*  Internet *
      |    |     |     |       ------          |     |    *         *
      |HOST+-----+     +-+  /          \       |     |     **     **
      |    |Wired|     | +-+            |      |     |       *****
      +----+     +-----+   |    Fixed   +-----/+-----+
                            \          /
                               ------


         Figure 1 Network based bonding Hybrid Access Architecture



   A CPE with HAG Figure 1 shows the network based bonding hybrid
   access architecture. In this architecture, HAG with network bonding
   function is deployed at the remote side of the CPE. The HAG receives
   the downstream traffic from internet and can apply the policies to
   distribute downstream traffic towards the CPE over available paths.

                  An in-band control protocol between the CPE and the
   HAG MAY be used to negotiate the traffic distribution policies for
   uplink traffic.

                However, there SHOULD be flexibility to download the
   traffic distribution policies OUT-of-band.

                Traffic distribution policies on CPE and HAG can have
   independent packet-based behavior.

                Operators can have flexibility to distribute flows over
   multiple paths or associate affinity of flow to a particular access
   type. Traffic policies can also be applied taking into account the
   access networks link status such as latency, state etc.

            Operator can also apply policy to fill one access link
   first before utilizing other (MAX-FILL). Affinity to one access MAY
   be due to cost or application characteristics. In this case the
   distribution of traffic is adjusted dynamically based on the load.



<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   Behavior to adjust on moving around flows or packet is a matter of
   local policy.

4.   Network Based Bonding Solution Overview

4.1. Separate BNG and PGW

       <--------Fixed Path-----> | <----- PMIPv6/GTP ---->|

                       +------+                 +------+

                       | AAA  |                 | PCRF |

                        +------+                 +------+
                           |                         |
                           |                         |
   +---+      _----_     +------+     _----_     +------+     ****
   |   |    _(Fixed )_   |      |   _(      )_   | HAG  |   **    **
   |CPE|<==(  Access  )==| BNG  |==( Operator )==|(NBF/ |==*Internet*
   +---+    (_      _)   |      |   (_Network_)  | PGW) |   **    **
      ^       '----'     +------+     '----'     +------+     ****
      |         DSL Access       PMIPv6/GTP Tunnel   ^
      |                                              |
      |                                              |
      |                                              |
      |                 Non-3GPP access              |
      |       ===================================    |
      |                  3GPP Access                 |
      |                +----+                        |
      |         +------|MME |----+                   |
      |         |      +----+    |                   |
      |         |                |                   |
      | S1-AP   |                | S11               |
      |         |                |                   |
      |       +---+            +-----+   S5-c        |
      +=======|eNB|============| SGW |===============+
              +---+   S1-u     +-----+   S5-u
                   <----GTP----> | <---PMIPV6/GTP--->|



        Figure 2 Hybrid access service in Fixed mobile convergence


<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   In Figure 2, CPE (either home or enterprise) is connected to
   internet via fixed access network using DSL as well as wireless
   access network using 4G cellular network.

                      The fixed access network BNG is connected to the
   PGW using 3GPP s2b reference point [TS23401]. The 4G cellular
   network is connected to the same PGW using S5 reference point (GPRS
   Tunneling Protocol (GTP) or Proxy Mobile IPV6 (PMIPV6) [RFC5213]) as
   specified by the 3GPP system architecture [TS23401].

                   The 3GPP as well non-3GPP access is bonded in CPE
   and the HAG which consist of NBF and PGW function. The bonding at
   HAG is achieved by allocating the same "IP address" when LTE access
   is setup on s5 and fixed (DSL) access over s2b.

             The packet distribution policies applied to the bonded
   session on the HAG and CPE. Policies applied on HAG helps steering
   downlink traffic on specific access type or distribute percentage of
   traffic across both access types on per flow basis or per packet
   basis. Similarly policies applied CPE helps steering uplink traffic
   on specific access type or distribute percentage of traffic on per
   flow basis or per packet basis.

4.2.  Integrated BNG and SGW/PGW



        <----------------Fixed Path-------------->

                                 +------+    +------+

                                 | AAA  |    | PCRF |

                                  +------+   +------+
                                     |---------- |
                                                 |
   +---+      _----_     +---+     _----_     +------+     ****
   |CPE|    _(Fixed )_   |   |   _(      )_   | HAG  |   **    **
   |   |<==(  Access  )==|SN |==( Operator )==|(S/PGW|==*Internet*
   +---+    (_      _)   |   |   (_Network_)  | BNG) |   **    **
      ^       '----'     +---+     '----'     +------+     ****
      |    DSL Access         PMIPv6/GTP Tunnel
      |                                          ^ ^
      |                 Non-3GPP access          | |



<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


      |       =================================  | |
      |                  3GPP Access             | |
      |                +----+                    | |
      |         +------|MME |--------------------+ |
      |         |      +----+      S11-c           |
      |         | S1-AP                            |
      |         |                                  |
      |       +---+                                |
      +=======|eNB|================================+
              +---+                S1-u
                      <------------GTP------------>
                 Figure 3 Integrated BNG,SGW,PGW with HAG

   In Figure 3 , CPE is connected to internet through HAG by fixed and
   wireless access. HAG consist of BNG,SGW/PGW and NBF function.

   HAG performs address assignment for all access types and acts as IP
   anchor point for IP services.

5. HAG Function

5.1. Address Assignment

         ========            ::::::::             =======

           CPE               LTE/DSL               HAG

         ========            ::::::::             =======

5.1.1.  Separate BNG and PGW

   Following are steps for address allocation when BNG and PGW are
   separate. HAG in this case performs the NBF and PGW function.

     [...CPE obtains LTE WAN IF address "A" during Pdp from HAG...]

        (...CPE performs LTE attach for IMSI "X" APN "Y"...)

        (...HAG allocates address "A" from APN.............)



     [...CPE obtains DSL WAN IF address "A" during PPPoE from HAG...]




<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


       (...CPE begins the PPPoE setup with BNG....................)

       (...BNG authenticates the CPE .............................)

       (...BNG receives all the 3GPP attributes from AAA server...)

       (...BNG signals on s2b to HAG for address allocation.......)

       (...HAG receives the s2b attach for APN "Y" with same IMSI.)

       (...HAG finds session for IMSI "X" in APN "Y" RAT=LTE......)

       (...HAG bonds the LTE session with s2b session.............)

       (...HAG returns address "A" in S2b response to BNG.........)

       (...BNG stitches the PPPoE session with s2b session .......)

       (...BNG returns the address "A" in PPPoE/DHCP to CPE.......)

   HAG performs Address assignment for all access type which acts as
   anchor point for IP services.

   APN "Y" on HAG is configured with property of "bonding" so that it
   can accept request from another access type for the same IMSI within
   same APN for same Pdp type. This helps in bonding the session with
   another access type session instead of treating it as handover.

                BNG performs authentication of CPE. As part of
   authentication, it also receives the 3GPP attributes like IMSI, APN
   and HAG information from AAA server. It uses (3GPP) S2b reference
   point in [TS23402], specified by the 3GPP system architecture to get
   IP address from HAG and stitches the fixed access (PPPoE/IPoE)
   session with the s2b session both in control plane and data-plane.

         The CPE remains unchanged as it uses standard method of IP
   address management for IPv4 and IPv6, on LTE link as well as DSL
   link.



5.1.2. Integrated BNG and SGW/PGW

   Following are the steps for address allocation when BNG, SGW and PGW
   function is integrated along with the HAG function

   [...CPE obtains LTE WAN IF address "A" during Pdp from PGW/HAG...]


<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


        (...CPE performs LTE attach for IMSI "X" APN "Y"...)

        (...HAG allocates address "A" from APN.............)



   [...CPE obtains DSL WAN IF address "A" during PPPoE from BNG/HAG..]

       (...CPE begins the PPPoE setup with on BNG.................)

       (...BNG authenticates the CPE .............................)

       (...BNG receives all the 3GPP attributes from AAA server...)

       (...BNG/HAG finds session for IMSI "X" in APN "Y" RAT=LTE..)

       (...BNG bonds the PPPoE session with LTE session...........)

       (...BNG returns the address "A" in PPPoE/DHCP to CPE.......)

   Address assignment is done in the HAG for all access type which acts
   as anchor point for IP services.

   APN "Y" on HAG is configured with property of "bonding" so that it
   can accept request from another access type for the same IMSI within
   same APN for same Pdp type. This helps in bonding the session with
   another access type.

                       BNG performs authentication of CPE. As part of
   authentication, it also receives the 3GPP attributes like IMSI, APN
   and PGW information from AAA server. BNG detects that the PGW is
   local and hence internally bonds the fixed (PPPoE/IPoE) session with
   the LTE session with the same IMSI and APN. As part of bonding it
   uses the same IP allocated for the LTE session and sends back in
   PPPoE response or waits for DHCP to request for the address in the
   DHCP response. Traffic distribution policies are applied to the
   bonded LTE and fixed (PPPoE/IPoE) session to distribute the traffic.

              The CPE remains unchanged as it uses standard method of
   IP address management for IPv4 and IPv6, on LTE link as well as DSL
   link.

5.2. Setup and Tunnel Management

   There is no extra tunnel apart from the link tunnels representing
   each access used in this solution.



<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   Any link can be setup first. The link that sets up access tunnel
   first gets the IP address from HAG. The link which comes later is
   bonded in HAG with the control plane to the existing access tunnel
   and the same IP address is returned to the later tunnel setup.

         BNG stitches the fixed (PPPoE/IPoE) tunnel to the s2b tunnel
   setup towards the HAG. As part of it, it maps the setup and tear
   down event of the fixed (PPPoE/IPoE) tunnel to the s2b tunnel and
   vice versa.

5.3. Traffic distribution policies

   As mentioned in earlier section, traffic distribution policies for
   upstream traffic is applied at CPE where as the downstream policies
   are applied at HAG. Given that single IP is allocated to all access
   type in this solution, it greatly helps to do flow mobility within
   the accesses.

           Traffic distribution can be done on per flow basis, per MP-
   TCP sub-flow basis or on per packet. Flow based traffic distribution
   avoids out-of-order packets resulting out of differential latencies
   on each access tunnel and doesn't require buffering resources at the
   CPE or HAG to re-order the packets.

        Policies applied in CPE can be downloaded out-of-band using
   ANDSF mechanism. Some CPEs are capable of sending initial uplink
   traffic on access type using random hashing but are able to move the
   flow to the access type chosen by network for the downlink traffic
   of that flow. Such CPEs need zero to minimal traffic policy
   configuration.

             Traffic distribution policies applied at HAG for downlink
   traffic distribution can help in distributing flows or packets using
   hashing.

                  Traffic policies MUST have the flexibility to
   configure the amount of percentage of traffic to be steered over a
   given access type. This allows addressing the use case where
   operator MAY want to send a particular type of traffic over a
   specific access type (Video over DSL). In this case a video rule
   with affinity of DSL access can be set to steer 100 percent of
   traffic over DSL link whereas traffic matching any-any rule can be
   set to steer 50% over DSL and 50 % over LTE.

        Traffic policies MUST allow asymmetric affinity association of
   access type for upstream and downstream traffic which allows
   splitting of a flow in upstream and downstream direction. Applying


<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   such polices operators can use LTE for uplink where as fixed (DSL)
   for downlink. Studies of such configuration have shown application
   performance improvement over use same access for an application.

        For the use case where a desired access link bandwidth is
   filled first (MAX-FILL) and use of second link is for the bandwidth
   overflow, one can use flow based or packet based approach for
   traffic distribution. The desirability of preferred access can be
   due to cheap access path or link characteristics for the given
   application.

              To fulfill this requirement, two rate Three color marker
   (trTCM) can be used. Each access link uses token buckets to meter
   the packets as per configuration both at CPE and the HAG. Colored
   based policy is applied at CPE and HAG to steer packets to an access
   based on color. For ex. Green packets are steered to DSL if that is
   the preferred access, whereas yellow packets are steered over LTE
   access.

         If flow based distribution is used, then on reaching certain
   thresholds there MUST be flexibility to move the flows from
   preferred access (say DSL) to another (LTE) by changing the
   percentage distribution. However, moving of FAT flows MAY result in
   under utilization of preferred access link. Similarly once the
   threshold drops, the traffic can be move back to preferred access by
   reverting the percentage distribution.

                  To avoid FAT flow distribution issues, packet based
   traffic distribution can be used to fully utilize the preferred
   access. Packets sent over different access for the same flow can
   reach out-of-order at the receiving end, due to differential
   transport latencies. Hence receiving end needs buffering and re-
   ordering capabilities to deliver flow packets correctly to an
   application.

5.4. Path Management

   This solution relies of existing mechanism of Path management for
   wireless (LTE) and fixed (PPPoE/IPoE) tunnels.

          In case of failure of any access tunnel the traffic MUST be
   switched to the alternate available access tunnel based on the
   traffic distribution policies.






<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


5.5. Backward compatibility

   This solution does not introduce any new protocol extensions. In
   this solution the CPE uses ANDSF routing rules to do the traffic
   distribution downloaded off-band in the CPE.

     The policies at the HAG are either local configured or downloaded
   from PCRF. The existing service (ex. IPTV traffic MUST remain on DSL
   access) remains untouched by configuring appropriate traffic
   distribution policies. The exact configuration of those policies is
   outside the scope of this document.

6. Applicability in Mobile networks

   A mobile node (MN) (also called User Equipment UE) connected to a
   3GPP access network specified by the 3GPP system architecture
   [TS23401] is connected over the S5 reference point (Proxy Mobile
   IPV6 (PMIPV6) [RFC5213] or GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP)) to the PGW
   where the mobile node's session is anchored.

             The (3GPP) S2b reference point in [TS23402], specified by
   the 3GPP system architecture defines a mechanism for allowing the
   mobile node (MN) attached to an "untrusted" non-3GPP IP access
   network to securely connect to a 3GPP network and access IP
   services. In this scenario, the mobile node establishes an IPSec ESP
   tunnel [RFC4303] to the security gateway called evolved packet data
   gateway (ePDG) and which in turn establishes a GPRS Tunneling
   Protocol (GTP) [TS23402] or  Proxy Mobile IPV6 (PMIPV6) [RFC5213]
   tunnel to the packet data gateway (PGW) [TS23402] where the mobile
   node's session is anchored.

              The figure below shows the hybrid access figure where the
   mobile node is connected to 3GPP and non-3GPP access simultaneously
   getting access to IP services via a PGW.









<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018



      <---------- IKEv2/IPsec ------> | <------ PMIPv6/GTP ----->|

                       +------------+
                       |    ePDG    |
                       | +--------+ |
   +---+     _----_    | | IPsec  | |    _----_    +-----+    ****
   |MN |   _(      )_  | | Module | |  _(      )_  | HAG/|  **    **
   |   |<=( Internet )=| +--------+ |=( Operator )=|(PGW)|-*Internet*
   +---+   (_      _)  |      :     |  (_Network_) +-----+  **    **
      ^      '----'    | +--------+ |    '----'        ^      ****
      |    IPsec Tunnel| | GTPv2  | |PMIPv6/GTP Tunnel |
      |                | |  MAG   | |                  |
      |                | +--------+ |                  |
      |                +------------+                  |
      |                 Non-3GPP access                |
      |       =======================================  |
      |                  3GPP Access                   |
      |                +----+                          |
      |         +------|MME |----+                     |
      |         |      +----+    |                     |
      |         |                |                     |
      | S1-AP   |                | S11                 |
      |         |                |                     |
      |       +---+            +-----+   S5-c          |
      +=======|eNB|============| SGW |=================+
              +---+   S1-u     +-----+   S5-u
               <------GTP-------> | <---PMIPV6/GTP--->|

             Figure 4 Hybrid access service in Mobile network

   In the hybrid access architecture, an User equipment (UE) is
   connected to multiple access technology at the same time. It MAY
   connect to same network or different IP network based on the
   operator service. A mobile node with Third Generation Partnership
   Project (3GPP) access technology such as LTE, UMTS and non-3GPP
   access such as WIFI having simultaneous network connections is a use
   case of hybrid access in mobile networks.

            As shown in Figure 4, the LTE access is bonded with the
   WIFI access and the same IP address is allocated on s2b as well as



<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   s5 3gpp reference point. As discussed above, traffic distribution
   policies can be applied to steer traffic over specific access type
   or distribute over both access type to increase the bandwidth for
   the mobile node.

             In some mobile networks, WIFI is preferred access since
   it's cheap, in that case policies described in MAX-FILL can be
   applied.

         In some mobile networks, mobile nodes are configured to prefer
   WIFI access as local break out policy. However it's been observed
   that if mobile node has LTE access as well WIFI access available and
   if the mobile node connects to WIFI access over the s2b reference
   point to the same PGW, the PGW treats it as 3GPP to non-3GPP access
   handover and disconnecting the LTE access. But since mobile node is
   configured to be always connected over LTE access, mobile node
   reconnects over LTE and the PGW treats it as non-3GPP to 3GPP access
   handover disconnecting the WIFI access. This results in ping-pong
   effect. Since both accesses are simultaneously connected, in this
   solution, it helps in addressing the ping-pong issue as well.

7. Inter-working with MP-TCP

   When used flow based hashing, it is possible that a FAT flow may
   cause to over congest the access link. To address FAT flow issues
   operator can deploy a MCP with the NBF. Operator in that case can
   apply policy to ensure the FAT flow traffic is split among small
   multi-path flows which can be seamlessly moved between the access
   types based on traffic distribution policies.

             Inter-working helps operators in using MP-TCP for
   selective traffic thus ensuring effective utilization of buffering
   resources both at CPE as well as at MCP.

8. Security Considerations

   The security considerations applicable while deploying the access
   types independently remains same while deploying network based
   bonding hybrid access architecture. This specification does not
   introduce any new security vulnerabilities.









<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


9. IANA considerations

10. References

10.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [24.008]   3GPP, "Technical specification Group Core Network and
              Terminals: Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification;
              Core network protocols; Stage 3"

   [24.301]   3GPP, "Technical specification Group Core Network and
              Terminals: Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for Evolved
              Packet System (EPS); Stage 3"

   [NAMPTCP]  M.Bouchadair et al. "draft-nam-mptcp-deployment-
              considerations-00", (work in progress), October 2016


10.2. Informative References

    [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.

    [TS23402]  3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
              .
   [TS23401]  3GPP, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
             for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-
             UTRAN) access.







<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


11. Acknowledgments

   The authors are thankful for the detailed review and valuable
   feedback provided by Guiu Fabregas and Laurent Thiebaut.













































<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


Authors' Addresses

   Praveen Muley
   Nokia
   805. E. Middle Field Rd.
   Mountain View, CA, 94043

   Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Coperniscuslaan 50
   Antwerp   2018
   Belgium

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Geng Liang
   China Mobile
   32 Xuanwumen West Street,
   Xicheng District, Beijing, 100053,
   China

   Email: gengliang@chinamobile.com

   Hans Liu
   D-Link Corporation
   289, Sinhu 3rd Road,
   Neihu District, Taipei City, 11494,
   Taiwan, R.O.C.

   Email: hans_liu@dlink.com.tw


   Loris Cardullo
   Vodafone
   Italy

   Email: Loris.Cardullo@vodafone.com


   Jonathan Newton
   Vodafone
   United Kingdom

   Email: Jonathan.Newton@vodafone.com



<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Network based Bonding solution         October 2018


   SungHoon Seo
   Korea Telecom
   South Korea

   Email: sh.seo@kt.com

   Sagiv Draznin
   Verizon Wireless
   USA

   Email: Sagiv.Draznin@VerizonWireless.com

   Basavaraj Patil
   AT&T
   2900 W. Plano Pkwy
   Plano, Texas 75075
   USA

   Email: bp801n@att.com





























<Muley et al.>          Expires April 30, 2019                 [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/