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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 M. Cullen
Intended Status: Informational                         Painless Security

N. Leymann                                                  M. Boucadair
C. Heidemann                                                C. Jacquenet
Deutsche Telekom AG                                       France Telecom

                                                                M. Zhang
                                                             B. Sarikaya
                                                                  Huawei
Expires: April 21, 2016                                 October 19, 2015

      Problem Statement: Bandwidth Aggregation for Internet Access
              draft-zhang-banana-problem-statement-00.txt

Abstract

   Bandwidth aggregation for Internet access can increase the access
   bandwidth and reliability. It has become a desirable network
   function, especially for those Service Providers who operates
   multiple heterogeneous networks.

   This document describes the issues with bandwidth aggregation for
   Internet access. The required network functions to be supported are
   specified. Several candidate solutions had been considered to support
   bandwidth aggregation for Internet access in IETF. These techniques
   are investigated.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html




BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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. Acronyms and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1. Per-packet Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2. Per-flow Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4. Generic Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5. Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1. Addressing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2. Traffic Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.3. Traffic Distribution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.4. Traffic Recombination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.5. Bypassing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.6. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.7. Policy Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6. Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7. Related IETF Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.1. GRE Tunnel Bonding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.2. LISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.3. Mobile IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.4. Multipath TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.5. Network Based Layer-2 Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A. Additional Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14





BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


1. Introduction

   Bandwidth aggregation across multiple Internet access links (a.k.a.,
   the bonding service) provides several useful features. The working
   text [WT-348] being developed by Broadband Forum has documented
   several use cases of the bonding service: Service Providers may use
   the bonding service to offer customers with increased access
   bandwidth and higher access reliability; Service Providers may
   accelerate the service turn-up of a primary access (e.g., a link of
   Digital Subscriber Line) with a longer lead time by providing an
   additional access (e.g., a link of Long Term Evolution) which has a
   short lead time.

   Although host based bonding service is possible, this document
   restricts the scope to be network based only. Also, a bonding service
   has to be operated by a single provider. Host based or multi-provider
   cases can be discussed here but will be standardized in other places,
   such as the MIF Working Group.

   This document is meant to capture the common problems that are
   addressed by several ongoing initiatives. The goal is to identify
   commonalities among them and derive functional requirements. It is
   not clear at this stage whether one or multiple solutions may be
   required to accommodate various deployment contexts. Typically, this
   is one of the inputs that are expected from the IETF community.

   Alternatively, a common framework can be sketched, including required
   functional modules and interactions. The various solution proposals
   (e.g., GRE, LISP, MIP, MPTCP) can be viewed as applicability
   assessments of the framework. To support the bonding service, the
   problems to be addressed includes: addresses, traffic classification,
   distribution and recombination, bypassing, measurement, and policy
   control. To address the problems, the work should be done in IETF
   includes:

   -  to determine and further detail the tunneling technology to be
      used;
   -  to specify the sole encapsulation format;
   -  to develop a common control plane;
   -  to define or suggest the algorithms to be used in packet
      reordering, flow control and congestion control.

   Several groups have developed, and in some cases deployed, bandwidth
   aggregation solutions based on existing IETF technologies. These
   technologies are investigated in this document. Note that solutions
   are listed in an alphabetic order. No preference order should be
   assumed by the reader.




BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


2. Acronyms and Terminology

   Bonding Service: An alias for Bandwidth Aggregation for Internet
   Access in this document.

   ACC: Shorted for ACCess equipment. ACC connects user's end station or
   network to the bonding service.

   AGG: Shorted for AGGregation equipment. AGG faces to the Internet
   while aggregates and terminates the bonding service from ACCs.

   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. Use Cases

   Depends on the traffic distribution techniques, there are two kinds
   of use cases for the bonding service.

3.1. Per-packet Traffic Distribution

   For residential users, there are few number of applications to be
   transmitted over the bonded connections. Per-flow load balance
   techniques might not be able to achieve a fine grained load
   distribution, so that the per-packet load sharing is necessary.

3.2. Per-flow Traffic Distribution

   Per-flow load balancing methods are widely used in IP networks. These
   techniques may be used to implement the bonding service. The per-flow
   traffic distribution is suitable for enterprise users who usually
   owns a dense number of applications. The load balancing among the
   bonded connections could be fine grained.

4. Generic Reference Model

               +-+                             +-+
               | +----- bonding connection ----+ |
               |A|                             |A|
               | |                             | |
               |C|if ---- sub-connection ----if|G|
               | |           . . .             | |
               |C|if ---- sub-connection ----if|G|
               | |                             | |
               +-+                             +-+

           Figure 4.1: Reference model of the bonding service



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   Customers access the Internet using the bonding service which
   comprises of several key component functions as shown in Figure 4.1:
   the access peer (shorted as ACC), the aggregation peer (shorted as
   AGG), the bonding connection between the two peers and the sub-
   connections that logically make up the bonding connection. Customers
   can only sense the bonding connection while the internal sub-
   connection between ACC and AGG are invisible to outside. The bonding
   connection works at layer 3. The sub-connections usually works at
   layer 3 but could work at layer 2.

5. Problem Areas

   The following subsections list the problems that need to be solved in
   the bonding service solutions.

5.1. Addressing

   ACC and AGG need allocate addresses to the interfaces attached to
   each sub-connection and the whole bonding connection. IPv4, IPv6 or
   dual-stack operation should be supported. Sub-connections can be
   internally demultiplexed by their interface addresses. When the
   bonding service is bootstrapped, these connection addresses are
   discovered at the other end through the control protocol. The
   connection addresses of ACC may be assigned by AGG, also through the
   control plane.

5.2. Traffic Classification

   Classification happens before the received packets are distributed to
   the connections. ACC and AGG MUST support the classification function
   that classify a packet into a class that is to be further processed
   by the traffic distribution function. The classification can be based
   on the IP address, application type, etc. ACC and AGG MUST support
   their classification function to be controlled by the policy from
   providers or customers.

5.3. Traffic Distribution

   For the traffic that is to be distributed into multiple sub-
   connections, by default it is distributed equally to the sub-
   connections according to their available bandwidth. Unequal load
   balancing should be supported as well. Traffic may be distributed to
   the connections in proportion to the available bandwidth of the sub-
   connections. Traffic may also be split in a way that one sub-
   connection is saturated first and then another sub-connection is
   used.

   For the per-flow use case, the load can be distributed using hashing



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   methods. For the per-packet use case, the coloring mechanism
   specified in [RFC2698] can be used to classify customer's IP packets,
   both upstream and downstream, into the sub-connections. For example,
   packets colored as green is distributed into one sub-connection and
   packets colored as yellow is distributed into the other sub-
   connection. For the scenario that requires more than two sub-
   connections, multiple levels of token buckets might be realized.

5.4. Traffic Recombination

   For the per-packet use case, the recombination function at the
   receiver provides the in-order delivery of customers' traffic. The
   sender need to mark each packet with a sequence number. The sequence
   number MUST be set per the whole bandwidth aggregation rather than
   per sub-connection so all packets carried on these sub-connections
   actually share the same buffer. The receiver reorder the out-of-
   sequence data packets in the buffer by the packets' sequence number.
   The maximum allowed size of the buffer and the maximum time that a
   packet can stay in the buffer is up to implementations.

   For the per-flow use case, an acknowledge number field appear in the
   packets in order to integrate the congestion and flow control into
   the traffic recombination. In order to support such control, the
   sender need also maintain a sending buffer.

5.5. Bypassing

   Service Providers may require some traffic to bypass the Traffic
   Distribution function. For example, some delay sensitive applications
   such as IPTV carried over a lossy sub-connection would impair
   customers' Quality of Experience. Service providers would require
   such applications transmitted only on the wired sub-connection when
   the aggregation is a mix of wired and wireless bonded sub-
   connections.

   There are two types of bypassing: the bypassing traffic are
   transmitted on a sub-connection out of all the sub-connections
   between ACC and AGG; the bypassing traffic is still transmitted on a
   sub-connection between ACC and AGG, just that the occupied bandwidth
   of the bypassing traffic on this sub-connection can not used for
   bandwidth aggregation anymore. In either case, the bypassing traffic
   does not benefit from the Bandwidth Aggregation.

   ACC and AGG need timely exchange information about bypassing, such as
   the application types that need be handled by the bypassing function,
   the bandwidth occupied by the bypassing traffic (See also Section
   5.6).




BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


5.6. Measurement

   ACC and AGG need monitor and exchange the performance parameters of
   the sub-connections between them. The following parameters fall into
   the problem space.

   -  Operating state: The operating state has to be measured by out-of-
      band control messages. When a sub-connection is detected to be
      failed, this sub-connection has to be removed from the bonding
      connection.

   -  End-to-end delay and delay variation: The measured result of this
      parameter are used in flow control and congestions control
      algorithms for the per-flow distribution. The per-packet
      distribution may make use of this measured parameter as well. For
      example, when the delay difference of two sub-connection exceeds a
      pre-defined threshold, the slower one can be suspended. The
      probing packet could be piggy-backed by data packets or could be
      carried by out-of-band control messages.

   -  Maximum sub-connection bandwidth: This parameter may be used to
      determine the amount of traffic that can be distributed to each
      sub-connection.

   -  Bypassing bandwidth: This parameter has to be timely monitored.
      Usually, this is measured for the opposite end to figure out the
      available sending bandwidth. For example, the ACC report the
      downward bypassing bandwidth for a sub-connection so that the AGG
      can calculate the remained available downward bandwidth of this
      sub-connection.

5.7. Policy Control

   Operators and customers may control the bonding service with
   policies. These policies will be interpreted into parameters or
   actions that impact traffic classification, distribution,
   combination, measurement and bypassing. The following policy control
   examples are in the problem space of this document.

   -  Operators may provide the parameters or filter list used by the
      traffic classification function.

   -  Operators may control the traffic distribution to be done either
      in a per-flow manner or a per-packet manner.

   -  Operators may determine the maximum allowed size (See
      MAX_PERFLOW_BUFFER in [RFC2890]) of the buffer for reordering.
      They may also define the maximum time (See OUTOFORDER_TIMER in



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


      [RFC2890]) that a packet can stay in the buffer for reordering.
      These parameters impact the traffic recombination.

   -  Operators may specify the interval for sending detecting messages
      and the retry times for ACC or AGG to send out detecting messages
      before it can declare a sub-connection failure. Operators may
      specify the allowed threshold of the delay difference for two sub-
      connections.

   -  Operators and customers may specify the service types bypassing
      the traffic distribution function.

6. Requirements

   Requirements for the bonding service are considered in this section.
   Also, some additional requirements are listed for discussion in the
   Appendix.

   The solution MUST apply for both IPv4 and IPv6.

   Host based solutions are out of the scope, therefore

      - the solution MUST NOT require any specific function at the
        terminal's side.

   In the bonding service, flapping the flows among various interfaces
   may have a negative impact on the customers experience (e.g.,
   hazardous log outs, broken HTTPS associations, etc.). The solution
   should be carefully designed, so that

      - activating the solution MUST NOT impact the stability,
        availability of the services delivered to the customer compared
        to customers who are serviced with traditional non-bonding
        service.

   "Roles" should be assigned to each supported network interface type
   (e.g., fixed or mobile access).  This role is assigned by the network
   operator (e.g., fixed access can be set as the "primary").  A default
   setting can be considered.

      - Setting of the role of the sub-connections (primary or backup)
        SHOULD NOT be changed by the user.

   The solution should provide Service Providers with means to enforce
   policy control of the bonding service. For example,

      - the solution MUST allow to rate limit the traffic on a per
        interface basis.



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


      - the solution MUST support means to enable/disable activating
        multiple interfaces at the CPE ACC side.

      - the solution MUST support means to instruct the CPEACC device
        about the logic for mounting interfaces.

      - the solution MUST support means to bind a given traffic to a
        subset of interfaces.

   For the sake of policy enforcement or analytics at the network side,

      - the solution MAY ease correlating flows, conveyed over multiple
        access networks, that belong to the same customer.

   Some services such as VoIP may be available over all active
   interfaces, but distinct logins and credentials may be used.

      - The CPE SHOULD be provided with clear instructions about which
        account to use to place outgoing sessions. For the sake of
        simplicity, it is RECOMMENDED to use the login/credentials that
        are independent of the underlying access network used to access
        the service.

7. Related IETF Work

   The bonding service has been considered to be supported in several
   ways. Subsections of this section list the related work that fall
   into the scope of IETF. In the future, IETF may adopt one direction
   to work on. However, the sub-functions developed in other directions
   may be integrated into the adopted direction.

7.1. GRE Tunnel Bonding

   GRE Tunnel Bonding [GRE-HA] uses per-packet traffic distribution to
   achieve a fine-grained load sharing among the sub-connections. The
   receiver may receive out-of-sequence packets so that reordering
   function is provided. Users' IP packets are encapsulated in the GRE
   header which in turn encapsulated in an outer IP header and
   transported on the sub-connections. The Sequence Number field of the
   GRE header is used to number the packets at the sender while the
   receiver makes use of this sequence number to reorder the packets.

   A clean-slate control plane is defined. Control messages are
   transported in the same GRE tunnels that are used to transport data
   packets. The control messages and data packets are distinguished by
   the GRE Protocol Type.

   GRE tunnel bonding has been implemented and deployed. Flow and



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   congestion control could be supported within the tunnel through
   extending the GRE header, though it is currently out of the scope.

7.2. LISP

   LISP has the basic capability to support the bonding service [LISP-
   HA] [ILNP]. LISP used to do traffic engineering based on static load
   balancing that is not agnostic to link characteristics. If the LISP
   architecture takes on the bonding service, performance of the sub-
   connections, such as their available bandwidth, end-to-end delay and
   packet loss, need to be measured, though they are not supported yet.
   To achieve such kind of dynamic flow based load balancing, some
   technique issues, such path symmetry and route oscillation, need to
   be considered and addressed.

   Packet based traffic distribution has been considered in [LISP-HA] as
   well. Detail specification of the reordering mechanism based on a
   "Reorder" flag is left as future work.

7.3. Mobile IP

   [MIP-HA] investigates how to support the bonding service by using IP
   mobility protocols. By treating the bonding service as a special
   scenario of IP mobility, some mechanisms (such as redundancy and load
   balancing) that have already been defined in the IP mobility
   protocols could be reused. At the same time, however, the IP mobility
   protocols have to be tailored in order to reduce the deployment
   complexity.

   A new multipath binding option is proposed as an extension of PMIPv6
   in [MIP-HA]. This option can be used to exchange the binding
   information, such as the Access Technology Type [RFC5213], the
   Interface Label and Binding ID, between the peers.

   Currently, per flow traffic management is well supported by IP
   mobility protocols (such as  [RFC6088] and [RFC6089]) while packet
   based traffic distribution is left as future work.

7.4. Multipath TCP

   Multipath TCP (MPTCP) had been considered as a candidate technology
   to support the bonding service. There are some implementations and
   deployments. MPTCP provides the ability to simultaneously use the
   sub-connections between the ACC and AGG peers. MPTCP "subflows" would
   be created, one per sub-connection, and are combined with the
   existing TCP session, which continues to appear as a single
   connection to the applications at both ends [RFC6824].




BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   MPTCP operates at the transport layer. The MPTCP protocol is
   specified to manage the state of subflows. [MPTCP-HA] addresses the
   deployment concerns and specifies the extension to transport UDP
   datagrams in MPTCP packets. The UDP traffic can be distributed among
   the sub-connections using the MPTCP features, which are traditionally
   not supported by MPTCP. Currently, MPTCP only supports per-flow
   traffic distribution. Traffic is distributed among these subflows
   using the flow based 5-tuple demultiplexing [RFC6824]. In the future,
   MPTCP might be extended to support packet based traffic distribution.

7.5. Network Based Layer-2 Tunneling

   Network Based Layer-2 Tunneling assigns a single IP address at each
   peer for the bonding connection. Layer-2 tunnels are set up per sub-
   connections. Layer 2 load balancing techniques, such as Link
   Aggregation [802.1AX] can be used to achieve the traffic distribution
   function. Per-flow load balance can be well supported by various of
   implementations. Packet based distribution might be supported as
   well. However, per-packet distribution may cause the packets to be
   received as out-of-sequence, which is an issue remained to be
   addressed by the Network Based Layer-2 Tunneling.

8. Security Considerations

   This document describes the problem space and does not introduce any
   security risks. However, security issues should be considered by
   solutions that address this problem space.

9. IANA Considerations

   No IANA action is required in this document. RFC Editor: please
   remove this section before publication.

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.

   [RFC2689] Bormann, C., "Providing Integrated Services over Low-
             bitrate Links", RFC 2689, September 1999.

   [RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
             RFC 2890, September 2000.

10.2. Informative References




BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   [WT-348]  Broadband Forum Work on "Hybrid Access for Broadband
             Networks" (WT-348), October 21, 2014,
             <http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1355/>.

   [GRE-HA]  N. Leymann, C. Heidemann, M. Zhang, et al, "GRE Tunnel
             Bonding", draft-zhang-gre-tunnel-bonding, work in progress.

   [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, "TCP
             Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
             Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.

   [MPTCP-HA] M. Boucadair and C. Jacquenet, "An MPTCP Option for
             Network-Assisted MPTCP Deployments: Plain Transport Mode",
             draft-boucadair-mptcp-plain-mode, work in progress.

   [MIP-HA]  P. Seite, A. Yegin and S. Gundavelli, "Multihoming support
             for Residential Gateways", draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming,
             work in progress.

   [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury,
             K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August
             2008.

   [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont,
             "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, January
             2011.

   [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., and
             K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Network
             Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, January 2011.

   [802.1AX] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
             Networks - Link Aggregation", 802.1AX-2014, 24 December
             2014.

   [LISP-HA] M. Menth, A. Stockmayer and M. Schmidt, "LISP Hybrid
             Access", draft-menth-lisp-ha, work in progress.

   [ILNP]    "ILNP - Identifier-Locator Network Protocol", online
             available: http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Appendix A. Additional Requirements

   The following requirements are listed as record and may subject to
   change.

      - The solution MUST be valid for any kinds of interfaces that need
        to be aggregated.  No dependency to the underlying media should



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


        be assumed.

      - The solution MUST comply with servers policy regarding IP
        addresses that are bound to (HTTP session) cookies.

      - The solution MUST NOT break TLS associations.

      - Activating the solution MUST NOT have negative impacts on the
        service usability (including the ACC management).

      - Service degradation MUST NOT be observed when enabling the
        solution.

      - Enabling the solution MUST increase the serviceability of the
        ACC. In particular, the solution MUST allow for the ACC to
        always establish a network attachment when the primary
        connectivity is out of service.

      - The solution SHOULD NOT alter any mechanism, to aggregate
        available resources or to ensure a service continuity among
        multiple access points, that is supported by end-devices
        connected to the ACC.

      - The ACC MUST bind the DNS server(s) discovered during the
        network attachment phase to the interface from which the
        information was received.

      - The ACC MUST bind the service information (e.g., SIP Proxy
        Server) discovered during the network attachment phase to the
        interface from which the information was received.

      - When sending the traffic via a given interface, the ACC MUST use
        as source address an address (or an address from a prefix) that
        was assigned for that interface.

      - For protocols such as RTP/RTCP, the same IP address MUST be used
        for both RTP and RTCP sessions.

      - Dedicated tools SHOULD be provided to the customer to assess the
        aggregated capacity (instead of link-specific). This can be
        included as part of the ACC UI, a dedicated portal, etc.










BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


Author's Addresses


   Margaret Cullen
   Painless Security
   14 Summer St. Suite 202
   Malden, MA 02148  USA

   EMail: margaret@painless-security.com


   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom AG
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21-27
   Berlin  10781
   Germany

   Phone: +49-170-2275345
   EMail: n.leymann@telekom.de


   Cornelius Heidemann
   Deutsche Telekom AG
   Heinrich-Hertz-Strasse 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +4961515812721
   EMail: heidemannc@telekom.de


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes  35000
   France

   EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Christian Jacquenet
   France Telecom
   Rennes
   France

   EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com


   Mingui Zhang



BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Problem Statement            October 19, 2015


   Huawei Technologies
   No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District,
   Beijing 100095 P.R. China

   EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com

   Behcet Sarikaya
   Huawei USA
   5340 Legacy Dr. Building 3
   Plano, TX  75024

   EMail: sarikaya@ieee.org







































BANANA                   Expires April 21, 2016                [Page 15]


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