Skip to main content

Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-04

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7222.
Authors Marco Liebsch , Pierrick Seite , Hidetoshi Yokota , Jouni Korhonen , Sri Gundavelli
Last updated 2013-10-21
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7222 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-04
NETEXT WG                                                     M. Liebsch
Internet-Draft                                                       NEC
Intended status: Standards Track                                P. Seite
Expires: April 24, 2014                                           Orange
                                                               H. Yokota
                                                                KDDI Lab
                                                             J. Korhonen
                                                          Renesas Mobile
                                                           S. Gundavelli
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        October 21, 2013

            Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
                   draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-04.txt

Abstract

   This specification defines a new mobility option that can be used by
   the mobility entities [LMA and MAG] in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain
   to exchange Quality of Service parameters associated with a
   subscriber's IP flows.  Using the QoS option, the local mobility
   anchor and the mobile access gateway can exchange available QoS
   attributes and associated values.  This enables QoS policing and
   labeling of packets to enforce QoS differentiation on the path
   between the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway.
   Furthermore, making QoS parameters available on the MAG enables
   mapping these parameters to QoS rules that are specific to the access
   technology which operates below the mobile access gateway.  After
   such mapping, QoS rules can be enforced on the access technology
   components, such as an IEEE 802.11e Wireless LAN controller.

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 April 24, 2014.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   2.  Conventions and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   3.  Description of the Technical Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Technical Scope and Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Relevant QoS Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.1.  Handover of existing QoS rules . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.3.2.  Establishment of QoS rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   4.  Protocol Messaging Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.1.  Quality of Service Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.2.  Quality of Service Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.2.1.  Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Downlink Bit
               Rate (MN-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.2.2.  Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Uplink Bit Rate  . . 16
       4.2.3.  Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum Downlink
               Bit Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.2.4.  Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum Uplink Bit
               Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.2.5.  Allocation and Retention Priority  . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.2.6.  Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.2.7.  Guaranteed Uplink Bit Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.2.8.  QoS Traffic Selector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement  . . . . 22
     4.4.  New Notification Reason for Update Notification Message  . 22
     4.5.  New Status Code for Update Notification
           Acknowledgement Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

   5.  Protocol Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.1.  Local Mobility Anchor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.2.  Mobile Access Gateway Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 26

   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   Appendix A.  General Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     A.1.  Use Case A -- Handover of Available QoS Context  . . . . . 35
     A.2.  Use Case B -- Establishment of new QoS Context in
           non-cellular Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     A.3.  Use Case C -- Dynamic Update to QoS Policy . . . . . . . . 36

   Appendix B.  Information when implementing PMIP based QoS
                support with IEEE 802.11e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

   Appendix C.  Information when implementing with a Broadband
                Network Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

1.  Introduction

   Mobile operators deploy Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] to
   enable network-based mobility management for mobile nodes (MN).
   Users can access Internet Protocol (IP) based services from their
   mobile device by using various radio access technologies.  Current
   standardization effort considers strong QoS classification and
   enforcement for cellular radio access technologies.  QoS policies are
   typically controlled by a policy control function, whereas the
   policies are enforced by one or more gateways in the infrastructure,
   such as the LMA and the MAG, as well as by access network elements.
   Policy control and QoS differentiation for access to the mobile
   operator network through alternative non-cellular access technologies
   is not yet considered, even though some of these access technologies
   are able to support QoS by appropriate traffic prioritization
   techniques.  However, handover and IP Flow Mobility using alternative
   radio access technologies, such as IEEE802.16 and Wireless LAN
   according to the IEEE802.11 specification, are being considered by
   the standards [TS23.402], whereas inter-working with the cellular
   architecture to establish QoS policies in alternative access networks
   has not gotten much attention so far.

   In particular Wireless LAN (WLAN) has been identified as alternative
   technology to complement cellular radio access.  Since the 802.11e
   standard provides QoS extensions to WLAN, it is beneficial to apply
   QoS policies to WLAN access, which enables QoS classification of
   downlink as well as uplink traffic between an MN and its LMA.  Three
   functional operations have been identified to accomplish this:

      (a) Maintaining QoS classification during a handover between
      cellular radio access and WLAN access by means of establishing QoS
      policies in the handover target access network,

      (b) mapping of QoS classes and associated policies between
      different access systems and

      (c) establishment of QoS policies for new data sessions/flows,
      which are initiated while using WLAN access.

   This document specifies an extension to the PMIPv6 protocol [RFC5213]
   to establish QoS policies for an MN's data traffic on the LMA and the
   MAG.  QoS policies are conveyed in-band with PMIPv6 signaling using
   the specified QoS option and are enforced on the LMA for downlink
   traffic and on the MAG for uplink traffic.  The specified option
   allows association between IP session classification characteristics,
   such as a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), and the expected
   QoS class for this IP session.  This document specifies fundamental
   QoS attributes which apply per Mobile Node, others that apply per

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   Mobility Session.  Additional attributes are specified, which can
   identify if they apply either per Mobility Session or per flow.  The
   chosen attributes are aligned with the 3GPP specifications.

   Additional QoS attributes can be specified and used with the QoS
   option, e.g. to represent more specific descriptions of latency
   constraints or jitter bounds.  The specification of such additional
   QoS attributes as well as the handling of QoS policies between the
   MAG and the access network are out of scope of this specification.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

2.  Conventions and Terminology

2.1.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.2.  Terminology

   All the mobility related terms used in this document are to be
   interpreted as defined in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specifications
   [RFC5213], [RFC5844], [RFC5845] and [RFC5846].  Additionally, this
   document uses the following abbreviations:

   o  WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) - A wireless network.

   o  WTP (Wireless Termination Point): The entity that functions as the
      termination point for the network-end of the IEEE 802.11 based air
      interface from the mobile node.  It is also known as the Wireless
      Access Point.

   o  WLC (Wireless LAN Controller): The entity that provides the
      centralized forwarding function for the user traffic.  All the
      user traffic from the mobile nodes attached to the WTP's is
      typically tunneled to this centralized WLAN access controller.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

3.  Description of the Technical Approach

3.1.  Technical Scope and Procedure

   The QoS option specified in this document supports the setup of
   states on the LMA and the MAG to allow enforcement of QoS policies
   for packet differentiation on the network path between the LMA and
   the MAG providing non-cellular access to the mobile operator network.
   QoS differentiation is typically enabled in the mobile operator's
   network using Differentiated Services techniques in the IP transport
   network, whereas radio access specific QoS differentiation depends on
   the radio technology in use.  Whereas accurate and fine granular
   traffic classes are specified for the cellular radio access, the IP
   transport network only supports enforcement of few Differentiated
   Services classes according to well-known Differentiated Services Code
   Points (DSCP) [GSMA.IR.34].

   The QoS option specified in this document enables exchange of QoS
   policies, which have been setup for an MN's IP flows on the cellular
   network, between the LMA and a new MAG during handover from the
   cellular access network to the non-cellular access network.
   Furthermore, the QoS option can be used to exchange QoS policies for
   new IP flows, which are initiated while the MN is attached to the
   non-cellular MAG.  The QoS policies could be retrieved from a Policy
   Control Function (PCF), such as defined in current cellular mobile
   communication standards, which aims to assign an appropriate QoS
   class to an MN's individual flows.  Alternatively, more static and
   default QoS rules could be made locally available, e.g. on an LMA,
   through administration.

   Figure 1 illustrates a generalized architecture where the QoS option
   can be used.  During an MN's handover from cellular access to non-
   cellular access, e.g. a wireless LAN (WLAN) radio access network, the
   MN's QoS policy rules, as previously established on the LMA for the
   MN's communication through the cellular access network, are moved to
   the handover target MAG serving the non-cellular access network.
   Such non-cellular MAG can have an access technology specific
   controller or function co-located, e.g. a Wireless LAN Controller
   (WLC), as depicted in option (I) of Figure 1.  Alternatively, the
   access specific architecture can be distributed and the access
   technology specific control function is located external to the MAG,
   as depicted in option (II).  In case of a distributed access network
   architecture as per option (II), the MAG and the access technology
   specific control function (e.g. the WLC) must provide some protocol
   for QoS inter-working.  Details of such inter-working are out of
   scope of this specification.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

           Non-cellular access       |  Cellular Core Network   Cellular
              (e.g. WLAN)            |           +--------+     Access
                                     |           |Policy  |
                                     |           |Control +-----+
                                     |           |Function|     |
             +----+                  |           +---+----+     |
             |WiFi|           (I)    |               |          |
             | AP |---+    +---+---+ |               |          |  ((O))
             +----+   |    |WiFi AR| |  PMIPv6    +-----+     +---+  |
                      +----+ (MAG) +=|============| LMA |=====|MAG+--|
                      |    |  WLC  | |  tunnel    +-----+     +---+  |
             +----+   |    +-------+ |             //
             |WiFi|---+              |            //
             | AP |                  |           //
             +----+           (II)   |          //
                           +-------+ |         //
   +----+    +------+      |WiFi AR| |        //
   |WiFi+----+  WLC +------+ (MAG) |=|=======//
   | AP |    |      |      |       | |
   +----+    +------+      +------ + |
                 ^            ^      |
                 |            |      |
                 +------------+
                QoS inter-working

   Figure 1: Architecture for QoS inter-working between cellular access
                          and non-cellular access

   Based on the architecture illustrated in Figure 1, two key use cases
   can be supported by the QoS option.  Use case A assumes a MN is
   attached to the network through cellular access and its LMA has QoS
   policy rules for the MN's data flows available.  This specification
   does not depend on the approach how the cellular specific QoS
   policies have been configured on the LMA.  During its handover, the
   available QoS policies are established on the handover target MAG,
   which serves the non-cellular access network.  Use case B assumes
   that new policies need to be established for a MN as a new IP flow is
   initiated while the MN is attached to the network through the non-
   cellular network.  These use cases are described in more detail in
   the Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2 respectively.  Appendix A.3
   describes a use case where established QoS policies are updated.

3.2.  Relevant QoS Attributes

   The QoS Option shall at least contain a DSCP value being associated
   with IP flows of a mobility session.  Optional QoS information could
   also be added.  For instance, in order to comply with 3GPP networks
   QoS, at minimum there is a need to convey the following additional

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   QoS parameters for each PMIPv6 mobility session:

   1.  Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (MN-AMBR) to both
       uplink and downlink directions.

   2.  Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate (MS-AMBR) to both
       uplink and downlink directions.

   The following attributes represent a useful set of QoS parameters to
   negotiate during the session setup:

   1.  Allocation and Retention Priority (ARP).

   2.  Guaranteed Bit Rate

   3.  Maximum Bit Rate

   For some optional QoS attributes the signaling can differentiate
   enforcement per mobility session and per IP flow.  For the latter,
   the rule associated with the identified flow(s) overrule the
   aggregated rules which apply per Mobile Node or per Mobility Session.
   Additional attributes can be appended to the QoS option, but their
   definition and specification is out of scope of this document and
   left to their actual deployment.

   Informational Note: If DSCP values follow the 3GPP specification and
   deployment, the code point can carry intrinsically additional
   attributes according to a pre-defined mapping table:

   This is the GSMA/3GPP mapping for EPC/LTE:

   QCI  Traffic Class   DiffServ PHB    DSCP
   1    Conversational       EF        101110
   2    Conversational       EF        101110
   3    Conversational       EF        101110
   4       Streaming        AF41       100010
   5      Interactive       AF31       011010
   6      Interactive       AF32       011100
   7      Interactive       AF21       010010
   8      Interactive       AF11       001010
   9      Background         BE        000000

3.3.  Protocol Operation

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

3.3.1.  Handover of existing QoS rules

   +--+            +--+             +---+                       +---+
   |MN|            |AP|             |MAG|                       |LMA|
   +--+            +--+             +---+                       +---+
    ||              |                 |     To                    |data
    |+--detach      |                 |  cellular<-==data[DSCP]==-|<----
    +----attach-----+                 |   access             [QoS rules]
    |               |-INFO[MNattach]->|                           |
    |               |                 |------PBU[handover]------->|
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |<----PBA[QoS option]-------|
    |               |<-INFO[QoSrules]-|                           |
    |               |                 |                           |
    |             Apply            Establish                   Update
    |             mapped          MN's uplink              MN's downlink
    |            QoS rules        DSCP rules                 DSCP rules
    |               |                 +===========================+
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |(B)              |(A)                        |data
    |<--data[QC]----|<---data[DSCP]---|<-======data[DSCP]========-|<----
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |data
    |---data[QC]--->|--->data[DSCP]-->|-=======data[DSCP]=======->|---->
    |               |(C)              |(D)                        |
    |               |                 |                           |

    (A): Apply DSCP at link to AP
    (B): Enforce mapped QoS rules to access technology
    (C): Map MN-indicated QoS Class (QC) to DSCP on the AP-MAG link, or
         validate MN-indicated QC and apply DSCP on the AP.-MAG link
         according to rule
    (D): Validate received DSCP and apply DSCP according to rule

                      Figure 2: Handover of QoS rules

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

3.3.2.  Establishment of QoS rules

   +--+            +--+             +---+                       +---+
   |MN|            |AP|-------------|MAG|-----------------------|LMA|
   +--+            +--+             +---+                       +---+
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |
    +----attached---+                 |                      [QoS rules]
    |               |                 |                           |
   new session      |                 |(F)                        |data
    |----data[QC]-->|---data[DSCPa]-->|-======data[DSCPb]=======->|---->
    |               |(E)              |--PBU[update, QoS option]->|(C)
    |               |                 |                     Validate and
    |               |                 |                     add QoS rule
    |               |                 |<----PBA[QoS option]-------|
    |               |<-INFO[QoSrules]-|                     [QoS rules']
    |               |                 |                           |
    |             Apply           Establish                       |
    |            adapted         MN's uplink                      |
    |           QoS rules        DSCP rules                       |
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |data
    |<--data[QC]----|<---data[DSCP]---|<-======data[DSCP]========-|<----
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |data
    |---data[QC]--->|--->data[DSCP]-->|-=======data[DSCP]=======->|---->
    |               |                 |                           |
    |               |                 |                           |

    (E): AP may enforce uplink QoS rules according to priority class
         set by the MN
    (F): MAG can enforce a default QoS class until LMA has classified
         the new flow (notified with PBA) or MAG classifies new flow and
         proposes the associated QoS class to the LMA for validation
         (proposed with PBU, notification of validation result with
         PBA)

          Figure 3: Adding new QoS profile for MN initiated flow

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

4.  Protocol Messaging Extensions

4.1.  Quality of Service Option

   Quality of Service option is a mobility header option used by local
   mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for negotiating QoS
   policy associated with a mobility session.  This option can be
   carried in Proxy Binding Update (PBU), Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   (PBA), Update Notification (UPN) and Update Notification
   Acknowledgement(UPA) messages.  There can be more than one instance
   of the Quality of Service option in a single message.  Each instance
   of the Quality of Service option represents a specific QoS profile.

   The alignment requirement for this option is 4n.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type     |   Length      |    Reserved   |      DSCP     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                   QoS Attribute(s)                            ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 4: QoS Option

   o  Type: <IANA-1>

   o  Length: 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option
      in octets, excluding the Type and Length fields.

   o  Reserved: This field is unused for now.  The value MUST be
      initialized by the sender to 0 and MUST be ignored by the
      receiver.

   o  Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP): A 6-bit unsigned
      integer indicating the code point value, as defined in [RFC2475]
      to be used for the mobile node's IP flows.  When this DSCP marking
      needs to be applied only for a subset of mobile node's IP flows,
      there will be a Traffic Selector Attribute in the option which
      provides the flow filter.  In the absence of any such filter
      attributes, this marking needs to be applied for all the IP flows
      associated with the mobility session.

   o  QoS Attribute(s): Zero or more Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoded QoS
      Attributes, also referred to as sub-options.  The format of the

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

      QoS Attribute is defined in section Section 4.2.  The
      interpretation and usage of the QoS Attributes is specific to the
      TLV.

4.2.  Quality of Service Attribute

   Quality of Service (QoS) Attribute is a sub-option that can be
   included in the Quality of Service mobility header option defined in
   Section 4.1.  The format of this QoS Attribute is as follows and all
   QoS Attributes have to conform to this format.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type       |     Length    |           Value               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 5: Quality of Service Attribute

   QoS Attribute Type:  8-bit unsigned integer indicating the type of
      the QoS Attribute.  This specification reserves the following
      values.

      (0) -   Reserved
         This value is currently reserved and cannot be used

      (1) -   Per-MN-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Downlink
         Bit Rate, is defined in Section 4.2.1.

      (2) -   Per-MN-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Uplink
         Bit Rate, is defined in Section 4.2.2.

      (3) -   Per-Session-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum
         Downlink Bit Rate, is defined in Section 4.2.3.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

      (4) -   Per-Session-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum
         Uplink Bit Rate, is defined in Section 4.2.4.

      (5) -   Alloc-Ret-Priority
         This QoS Attribute, Allocation and Retention Priority, is
         defined in Section 4.2.5.

      (6) -   Guaranteed-DL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate, is defined in
         Section 4.2.6.

      (7) -   Guaranteed-UL-Bit-Rate
         This QoS Attribute, Guaranteed Uplink Bit Rate, is defined in
         Section 4.2.7.

      (8) -   QOS-Traffic-Selector
         This QoS Attribute, QoS Traffic Selector, is defined in
         Section 4.2.8.

      (255) -   Reserved
         This value is currently reserved and cannot be used

   Length:  8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of octets
      needed to encode the Option Data, excluding the Type and Length
      fields.

4.2.1.  Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Downlink Bit Rate (MN-Agg-Max-
        DL-Bit-Rate)

   This attribute represents the maximum downlink bit-rate for the
   mobile node.  This value is an aggregate across all mobility sessions
   associated with that mobile node.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Update sent by a
   mobile access gateway, or in a Update Notification message
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] sent by the local mobility
   anchor, it indicates the maximum requested downlink bit-rate for the
   mobile node at the peer.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   message, or in a Update Notification Acknowledgement

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] message, it indicates the
   maximum downlink bit-rate that is allocated locally for the mobile
   node.

   If multiple mobility sessions are established for a mobile node,
   through multiple mobile access gateways and with sessions anchored
   either on a single local mobility anchor, or when spread out across
   multiple local mobility anchors, then it depends on the operator's
   policy and the specific deployment as how the total bandwidth for the
   mobile node on each MAG-LMA pair is computed.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Per-MN-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 1

   o  Length: The length in octets of the Attribute, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

   o  Per-MN-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate: is a 32-bit unsigned integer, and it
      indicates the aggregate maximum downlink bit-rate that is
      requested/allocated for all the mobile node's IP flows.

4.2.2.  Per Mobile Node Aggregate Maximum Uplink Bit Rate

   This attribute represents the maximum uplink bit-rate for the mobile
   node.  This value is an aggregate across all mobility sessions
   associated with that mobile node.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Update sent by a
   mobile access gateway, or in a Update Notification message
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] sent by the local mobility
   anchor, it indicates the maximum requested uplink bit-rate for the
   mobile node at the peer.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   message, or in a Update Notification Acknowledgement
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] message, it indicates the
   maximum allocated uplink bit-rate that is allocated locally for the
   mobile node.

   If multiple mobility sessions are established for a mobile node,
   through multiple mobile access gateways and with sessions anchored

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   either on a single local mobility anchor, or when spread out across
   multiple local mobility anchors, then it depends on the operator's
   policy and the specific deployment as how the total bandwidth for the
   mobile node on each MAG-LMA pair is computed.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Per-MN-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 2

   o  Length: The length in octets of the Attribute, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

   o  Per-MN-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate: is of type unsigned 32-bit integer,
      and it indicates the aggregate maximum uplink bit-rate that is
      requested/allocated for the mobile node's IP flows.

4.2.3.  Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum Downlink Bit Rate

   This attribute represents the maximum downlink bit-rate for the
   mobility session.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Update sent by a
   mobile access gateway, or in a Update Notification message
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] sent by the local mobility
   anchor, it indicates the maximum requested downlink bit-rate for that
   mobile session at the peer.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   message, or in a Update Notification Acknowledgement
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] message, it indicates the
   maximum downlink bit-rate that is allocated locally for that mobility
   session.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Per-Session-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   o  Type: 3

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

   o  Per-Session-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate: is a 32-bit unsigned integer, and
      it indicates the aggregate maximum downlink bit-rate that is
      requested/allocated for all the IP flows associated with that
      mobility session.

4.2.4.  Per Mobility Session Aggregate Maximum Uplink Bit Rate

   This attribute represents the maximum uplink bit-rate for the
   mobility session.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Update sent by a
   mobile access gateway, or in a Update Notification message
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] sent by the local mobility
   anchor, it indicates the maximum requested uplink bit-rate for that
   mobile session at the peer.

   When this attribute is present in a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
   message, or in a Update Notification Acknowledgement
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] message, it indicates the
   maximum uplink bit-rate that is allocated locally for that mobility
   session.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Per-Session-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 4

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

   o  Per-Session-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate: is a 32-bit unsigned integer, and
      it indicates the aggregate maximum uplink bit-rate that is
      requested/allocated for all the IP flows associated with that
      mobility session.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

4.2.5.  Allocation and Retention Priority

   This attribute represents allocation and retention priority for the
   mobility session or a set of IP flows.

   When the QoS option including the Allocation and Retention Priority
   attribute also includes the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Allocation and Retention Priority attribute
   is to be applied at a flow level.  The traffic selector in the QOS
   Traffic Selector Attribute identifies the target flows.

   When the QoS option including the Allocation and Retention Priority
   attribute does not include the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Allocation and Retention Priority attribute
   is to be applied to all the IP flows associated with that mobility
   session.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Priority-Level                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Pre-emption-Capability     |  Pre-emption-Vulnerability    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 5

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (10).

   o  Priority-Level: is of type unsigned 32-bit integer, and it is used
      to decide whether a mobility session establishment or modification
      request can be accepted or needs to be rejected (typically used
      for admission control of Guaranteed Bit Rate traffic in case of
      resource limitations).  The priority level can also be used to
      decide which existing mobility session to pre-empt during resource
      limitations.  The priority level defines the relative timeliness
      of a resource request.

      Values 1 to 15 are defined, with value 1 as the highest level of
      priority.

      Values 1 to 8 should only be assigned for services that are
      authorized to receive prioritized treatment within an operator
      domain.  Values 9 to 15 may be assigned to resources that are
      authorized by the home network and thus applicable when a MN is

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

      roaming.

   o  Pre-emption-Capability: defines whether a service data flow can
      get resources that were already assigned to another service data
      flow with a lower priority level.  The following values are
      defined:

      Enabled (0): This value indicates that the service data flow is
      allowed to get resources that were already assigned to another IP
      data flow with a lower priority level.

      Disabled (1): This value indicates that the service data flow is
      not allowed to get resources that were already assigned to another
      IP data flow with a lower priority level.

   o  Pre-emption-Vulnerability: defines whether a service data flow can
      lose the resources assigned to it in order to admit a service data
      flow with higher priority level.  The following values are
      defined:

      Enabled (0): This value indicates that the resources assigned to
      the IP data flow can be pre-empted and allocated to a service data
      flow with a higher priority level.

      Disabled (1): This value indicates that the resources assigned to
      the IP data flow shall not be pre-empted and allocated to a
      service data flow with a higher priority level.

4.2.6.  Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate

   The guaranteed downlink bit rate for one of the mobile node's
   specific flows or mobility sessions.  When provided in a request, it
   indicates the maximum bandwidth requested.  When provided in an
   answer, it indicates the maximum bandwidth allocated.

   When the QoS option including the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate
   Attribute also includes the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate attribute is
   to be applied at a flow level.  The traffic selector in the QOS
   Traffic Selector Attribute identifies the target flows.

   When the QoS option including the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate
   Attribute does not include the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate attribute is
   to be applied to all the IP flows associated with that mobility
   session.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Guaranteed-DL-Bit-Rate                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 6

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

   o  Guaranteed-DL: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it
      indicates the guaranteed bandwidth in bits per second for downlink
      IP flows.

4.2.7.  Guaranteed Uplink Bit Rate

   The guaranteed downlink bit rate for one of the Mobile Node's
   specific flows or mobility sessions.  When provided in a request, it
   indicates the maximum bandwidth requested.  When provided in an
   answer, it indicates the maximum bandwidth allocated.

   When the QoS option including the Guaranteed Uplink Bit Rate
   Attribute also includes the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate attribute is
   to be applied at a flow level.  The traffic selector in the QOS
   Traffic Selector Attribute identifies the target flows.

   When the QoS option including the Guaranteed Uplink Bit Rate
   Attribute does not include the QOS Traffic Selector Attribute
   (Section 4.2.8), then the Guaranteed Downlink Bit Rate attribute is
   to be applied to all the IP flows associated with that mobility
   session.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Guaranteed-UL-Bit-Rate                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 7

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.  This value is set to (6).

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   o  Guaranteed-UL: is of type unsigned 32 bit integer, and it
      indicates the guaranteed bandwidth in bits per second for uplink
      IP flows.  The bandwidth contains all the overhead coming from the
      IP-layer and the layers above, e.g.  IP, UDP, RTP and RTP payload.

4.2.8.  QoS Traffic Selector

   MUST be included if QoS parameters (Options according to
   Section 4.2.5 to Section 4.2.7) are expected to apply at the flow
   level

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Length    |   Reserved    |    TS Format  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Traffic Selector ...                   ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: 8

   o  Length: The length of the Attribute in octets, excluding the Type
      and Length fields.

   o  TS Format: An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the Traffic
      Selector Format.  Value "0" is reserved and MUST NOT be used.
      When the value of TS Format field is set to (1), the format that
      follows is the IPv4 Binary Traffic Selector specified in section
      3.1 of [RFC6088], and when the value of TS Format field is set to
      (2), the format that follows is the IPv6 Binary Traffic Selector
      specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6088].

   o  Traffic Selector: variable-length opaque field for including the
      traffic specification identified by the TS format field.

4.3.  New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement

   This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in
   Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message.

   CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (Cannot meet QoS Service Request):
   <IANA-2>

4.4.  New Notification Reason for Update Notification Message

   This document defines the following new Notification Reason value for
   use in Update Notification message.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   QOS_SERVICE_REQUESTED (QoS Service Requested): <IANA-3>

4.5.  New Status Code for Update Notification Acknowledgement Message

   This document defines the following new Status code value for use in
   Update Notification Acknowledgement message.

   CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (Cannot meet QoS Service Request ):
   <IANA-4>

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

5.  Protocol Considerations

5.1.  Local Mobility Anchor Considerations

   o  The conceptual Binding Cache entry data structure maintained by
      the local mobility anchor, described in Section 5.1 of [RFC5213],
      MUST be extended to store the negotiated Quality of Service
      profile(s) to be enforced.  There can be multiple such profiles
      and each profile must include all the parameters defined in
      Section Section 4.2.

   Receiving a QoS Service Request:

   o  On receiving a Proxy Binding Update message with one or more
      instances of Quality of Service option included in the message,
      the local mobility anchor must process the option(s) and determine
      if the QoS service request for the proposed QoS profile(s) can be
      met.  Each instance of the Quality of Service option represents a
      specific QoS profile.  This determination can be based on policy
      configured on the local mobility anchor, available network
      resources, or based on other considerations.

   o  If the local mobility anchor can support the proposed QoS
      profile(s) in entirety, then it MUST send a Proxy Binding
      Acknowledgement message with a status code value of (0).  The
      message MUST include all the Quality of Service option instances
      copied (including all the option content) from the received Proxy
      Binding Update message.  The local mobility anchor MUST enforce
      the Quality of Service rules for all the proposed QoS profile(s)
      on the mobile node's uplink and downlink traffic.

   o  If the local mobility anchor cannot support the requested QoS
      profile(s) in entirety then it MUST reject the request and send a
      Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message with the status code value
      set to CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (Cannot meet QoS Service
      Request).  The denial for QoS service request MUST NOT result in
      removal of any existing mobility session for that mobile node.
      The Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message may include the Quality
      of Service option based on the following considerations.  Rest of
      the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message MUST be as specified in
      [RFC5213] and [RFC5844].

      *  If the local mobility anchor cannot support QoS services for
         that mobile node and for any QoS profile, then the Quality of
         Service option MUST NOT be included in the Proxy Binding
         Acknowledgement message.  This serves as an indication to the
         mobile access gateway that QoS services are not supported for
         that mobile node.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

      *  If the local mobility anchor can support QoS services for that
         mobile node, but for a downgraded/revised QoS profile(s) or for
         a partial set of QoS profiles, then the Quality of Service
         option(s) MUST be included in the Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
         message.  The contents of each of the option (including the QoS
         Attributes) MUST reflect the QoS profile that the local
         mobility anchor can support for that mobile node.  This serves
         as an indication for the mobile access gateway to resend the
         Proxy Binding Update message with the proposed QoS profile(s).

   Sending a QoS Service Request:

   o  The local mobility anchor, at any time, can initiate QoS service
      request by sending a Update Notification message
      [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] with the Notification
      Reason set to a value of QOS_SERVICE_REQUESTED and with the
      Acknowledgement Requested Flag (A-flag) set to a value of (1).
      The message MUST be constructed as described in Section 5 of
      [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications].  Furthermore, the message
      MUST include the Quality of Service option(s) with the QoS
      Attributes reflecting the requested QoS profile.  Each instance of
      the Quality of Service option represents a specific QoS profile.
      The response to the Update Notification message for QoS service
      request must be handled as follows.

      *  If the received Update Notification Acknowledgement
         [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] message is with the
         status code field set to value of (0), the local mobility
         anchor MUST enforce the Quality of Service rules for the
         negotiated QoS profile(s) on the mobile node's uplink and
         downlink traffic.

      *  If the received Update Notification Acknowledgement message is
         with the status code field set to value of
         (CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST), the local mobility anchor
         MUST apply the following considerations.

         +  If the message did not include any Quality of Service
            option(s), then it is indication from the mobile access
            gateway that QoS services are not enabled for the mobile
            node.

         +  If the message includes one more instances of the Quality of
            Service option, but the option contents reflect a
            downgraded/revised QoS profile, then the local mobility
            anchor MAY choose to agree to the proposed QoS profile(s) by
            resending a new Update Notification message with the revised
            QoS profile(s).  If the proposed QoS profile(s) are not

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

            acceptable to the local mobility anchor, then there is no
            further action needed.

5.2.  Mobile Access Gateway Considerations

   o  The conceptual Binding Update List entry data structure maintained
      by the mobile access gateway, described in Section 6.1 of
      [RFC5213], MUST be extended to store the negotiated Quality of
      Service profile(s) to be enforced.  There can be multiple such
      profiles and each profile must include all the parameters defined
      in Section Section 4.2.

   Receiving a QoS Service Request:

   o  On receiving a Update Notification message with one or more
      instances of Quality of Service option included in the message,
      the mobile access gateway must process the option(s) and determine
      if the QoS service request for the proposed QoS profile(s) can be
      met.  Each instance of the Quality of Service option represents a
      specific QoS profile.  This determination can be based on policy
      configured on the mobile access gateway, available network
      resources in the access network, or based on other considerations.

   o  If the mobile access gateway can support all the proposed QoS
      profile(s) in entirety, then it MUST send a Update Notification
      Acknowledgement message to the local mobility anchor with the
      status code value of (0).  The message MUST include all the
      Quality of Service option instances copied (including all the
      option content) from the received Update Notification message.
      The mobile access gateway MUST enforce the Quality of Service
      rules for all the proposed QoS profile(s) on the mobile node's
      uplink and downlink traffic.

   o  If the mobile access gateway cannot support the requested QoS
      profile(s) in entirety, then it MUST reject the request and send a
      Update Notification Acknowledgement message with the status code
      set to CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (Cannot meet QoS Service
      Request).  The Update Notification Acknowledgement message may
      include the Quality of Service option(s) based on the following
      considerations.

      *  If the mobile access gateway cannot support QoS services for
         that mobile node and for any of QoS profile, then the Quality
         of Service option MUST NOT be included in the Update
         Notification Acknowledgement message.  This serves as an
         indication to the local mobility anchor that QoS services are
         not supported for that mobile node.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

      *  If the mobile access gateway can support QoS services for that
         mobile node, but for a downgraded/revised QoS profile(s) or for
         a partial set of QoS profiles, then Quality of Service
         option(s) MUST be included in the Update Notification
         Acknowledgement message.  The contents of each of the option
         (including the QoS Attributes) MUST reflect the QoS profile
         that the mobile access gateway can support for that mobile
         node.  This serves as an indication to the local mobility
         anchor to resend the Update Notification message with the
         revised QoS profile(s).

   Sending a QoS Service Request:

   o  The mobile access gateway, at any time, can initiate a QoS service
      request for a mobile node, by sending a Proxy Binding Update
      message.  The message MUST be constructed as specified in
      [RFC5213] and must include the required mobility options.  The
      message MUST additionally include the Quality of Service option(s)
      with the QoS Attributes reflecting the requested QoS profile.
      Each instance of the Quality of Service option represents a
      specific QoS profile.  The response to the Proxy Binding Update
      message for the QoS service request must be handled as follows.

      *  If the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message has the
         status code field set to a value of (0), the mobile access
         gateway MUST enforce the Quality of Service rules for the
         negotiated QoS profile(s) on the mobile node's uplink and
         downlink traffic.

      *  If the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message has the
         status code field set to a value of
         (CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST), the mobile access gateway
         MUST apply the following considerations.

         +  The denial for QoS service request MUST NOT result in
            removal of any existing Binding Update list entry for that
            mobile node.

         +  If the message did not include any Quality of Service
            option(s), then it is indication from the local mobility
            anchor that QoS services are not enabled for the mobile
            node.

         +  If the message includes one ore more instances of the
            Quality of Service option, but the option contents reflect a
            downgraded/revised QoS profile, then the mobile access
            gateway MAY choose to agree to proposed QoS profile(s) by
            resending a new Proxy Binding Update message with the

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

            revised QoS profile(s).  If any of the proposed QoS
            profile(s) are not acceptable to the mobile access gateway,
            then there is no further action needed.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the following IANA actions.

   o  Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the
      Quality of Service (QoS) option.  The format of this option is
      described in Section 4.1.  The type value <IANA-1> for this
      mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options
      registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters.
      RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-1> in Section Section 4.1 with
      the assigned value and update this section accordingly.

   o  Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility sub-option
      format, Quality of Service Attribute.  The format of this mobility
      sub-option is described in Section 4.2.  This sub-option can be
      carried in Quality of Service mobility option.  The type values
      for this sub-option needs to be managed by IANA, under the
      Registry, Quality of Service Attribute Registry.  This registry
      should be created under "Mobile IPv6 Parameters" registry at
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters.  This
      specification reserves the following type values.  Approval of new
      Quality of Service Attribute type values are to be made through
      IANA Expert Review.

   +=====+=================================+=================+
   |Value|       Description               |   Reference     |
   +=====+=================================+=================+
   | 0   | Reserved                        | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 1   | Per-MN-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate      | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 2   | Per-MN-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate      | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 3   | Per-Session-Agg-Max-DL-Bit-Rate | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 4   | Per-Session-Agg-Max-UL-Bit-Rate | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 5   | Alloc-Ret-Priority              | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 6   | Guaranteed-DL-Bit-Rate          | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 7   | Guaranteed-UL-Bit-Rate          | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 8   | QoS-Traffic-Selector            | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+
   | 255 | Reserved                        | <this draft>    |
   +=====+===================================================+

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 29]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   o  Action-3: This document defines a new status value,
      CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (<IANA-2>) for use in Proxy
      Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3.
      This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters.  The
      allocated value has to be greater than 127.  RFC Editor: Please
      replace <IANA-2> in Section Section 4.3 with the assigned value
      and update this section accordingly.

   o  Action-4: This document defines a new Notification Reason,
      QOS_SERVICE_REQUESTED (<IANA-3>) for use in Update Notification
      message [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] as described in
      Section 4.4.  This value is to be assigned from the "Update
      Notification Reasons Registry" at https://www.iana.org/
      assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml.  RFC
      Editor: Please replace <IANA-3> in Section Section 4.4 with the
      assigned value and update this section accordingly.

   o  Action-5: This document defines a new Notification Reason,
      CANNOT_MEET_QOS_SERVICE_REQUEST (<IANA-4>) for use in Update
      Notification Acknowledgement message
      [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] as described in
      Section 4.5.  This value is to be assigned from the "Update
      Notification Acknowledgement Status Registry" at https://
      www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/
      mobility-parameters.xhtml.  RFC Editor: Please replace <IANA-4> in
      Section Section 4.5 with the assigned value and update this
      section accordingly.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 30]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

7.  Security Considerations

   The quality of service option defined in this specification is for
   use in Proxy Binding Update, Proxy Binding Acknowledgement, Update
   Notification, and Update Notification Acknowledgement messages.  This
   option is carried like any other mobility header option as specified
   in [RFC5213] and does not require any special security
   considerations.  Carrying quality of service information does not
   introduce any new security vulnerabilities.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 31]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors of this document thank the NetExt Working Group for the
   valuable feedback to different versions of this specification.  In
   particular the authors want to thank Basavaraj Patil, Behcet
   Sarikaya, Charles Perkins, Dirk von Hugo, Mark Grayson, Tricci So,
   Ahmad Muhanna, John Kaippallimalil and Rajesh Pazhyannur for their
   valuable comments and suggestions to improve this specification.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 32]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications]
              Krishnan, S., Gundavelli, S., Liebsch, M., Yokota, H., and
              J. Korhonen, "Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6",
              draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-12 (work in
              progress), October 2013.

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

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

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

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [80211e]   IEEE, "IEEE part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
              Control(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications.
              Amendment 8: Medium Access Control (MAC) Quality of
              Service Enhancements", 2005.

   [GSMA.IR.34]
              GSMA, "Inter-Service Provider IP Backbone Guidelines 5.0",
              May 2013.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC5845]  Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung,
              "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy
              Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, June 2010.

   [RFC5846]  Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., Chowdhury, K.,
              and P. Yegani, "Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility",
              RFC 5846, June 2010.

   [TS23.402]
              3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 33]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

              2010.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 34]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Appendix A.  General Use Cases

A.1.  Use Case A -- Handover of Available QoS Context

   The MN is first connected to the cellular network, e.g. an LTE
   network, and having a multimedia session such as a video call with
   appropriate QoS parameters set by the policy control function.  Then,
   the MN discovers a WiFi AP (e.g., at home or in a cafe) and switches
   to it provided that WiFi access has a higher priority when available.
   Not only is the session continued, but also the QoS is maintained
   after moving to the WiFi access.  In order for that to happen, the
   LMA delivers the QoS parameters to the MAG on the WLC via the PMIPv6
   signaling and the equivalent QoS treatment is provided toward the MN
   on the WiFi link.

                                              +--------+
                                              |Policy  |
                                              |Control |
                                              |Function|
                                              +---+----+
                                                  |
          +----+       +-------+              +---+----+
    +--+  |LTE |_______|  SGW  |              |  PGW   |
    |MN|~~|eNB |       |       |==============| (LMA)  |
    +--+  +----+       +-------+            //+--------+
     :                                     //
     :                                    //
     V    +----+       +-------+ PMIPv6  //
    +--+  |WiFi|_______|  WLC  |=========
    |MN|~~| AP |       | (MAG) | tunnel
    +--+  +----+       +-------+

                        Figure 6: Handover Scenario

A.2.  Use Case B -- Establishment of new QoS Context in non-cellular
      Access

   A single operator has deployed both a fixed access network and a
   mobile access network.  In this scenario, the operator may wish a
   harmonized QoS management on both accesses, but the fixed access
   network does not implement a QoS control framework.  So, the operator
   chooses to rely on the 3GPP policy control function, which is a
   standard framework to provide a QoS control, and to enforce the 3GPP
   QoS policy on the Wi-Fi Access network.  The PMIP interface is used

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 35]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   to realize this QoS policy provisioning.

   The use-case is depicted on Figure 7.  The MN first attaches to the
   Wi-Fi network.  During the attachment process, the LMA, which may
   communicate with Policy Control Function (using procedures outside
   the scope of this document), provides the QoS parameters to the MAG
   in an extension to the PMIP signaling (i.e.  PBA).  Subsequently, an
   application on the MN may trigger the request for alternative QoS
   resources, e.g., by use of the WMM-API [80211e].  The MN may request
   traffic resources be reserved using L2 signalling, e.g., sending an
   ADDTS message [80211e].  The request is relayed to the MAG which
   includes the QoS parameters on the PMIP signalling (i.e. the PBU
   initiated upon flow creation).  The LMA, in co-ordination with the
   PCF, can then authorize the enforcement of such QoS policy.  Then,
   the QoS parameters are provided to the MAG as part of the PMIP
   signaling and the equivalent QoS treatment is provided towards the MN
   on the WiFi link.

                                            |
                                            |
                                            | +--------+
                                            | |Policy  |
                                            | |Control |
                                            | |Function|
                                            | +---+----+
                                            |     |
                                            | +---+----+
              +----+       +-------+ PMIPv6 | |  PGW   |
        +--+  |WiFi|_______|  WLC  |========|=| (LMA)  |
        |MN|~~| AP |       | (MAG) | tunnel | +--------+
        +--+  +----+       +-------+        |
                                            |
                         Wi-Fi Access       |
                          Network           |   Cellular
                                            |    Network
                                            |

                     Figure 7: QoS policy provisioning

A.3.  Use Case C -- Dynamic Update to QoS Policy

   A mobile node is attached to the WLAN access and has obtained QoS
   parameters from the LMA for that mobility session.  Having obtained
   the QoS parameters, a new application, e.g.  IMS application, gets
   launched on the mobile node that requires certain QoS support.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 36]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   The application on the mobile node initiates the communications via a
   dedicated network function (e.g.  IMS Call Session Control Function).
   Once the communication is established, the application network
   function notifies the PCF about the new IP flow.  The PCF function in
   turn notifies the LMA about the needed QoS parameters identifying the
   IP flow and QoS parameters.  LMA sends an Update Notification message
   [I-D.ietf-netext-update-notifications] to the MAG with the
   Notification Reason value set to "QOS_SERVICE_REQUESTED".

   The MAG, on receiving the Update Notification message, completes the
   PBU/PBA signaling for obtaining the new QoS parameters.  The MAG
   provisions the newly obtained QoS parameters on the access network to
   ensure the newly established IP flow gets its requested network
   resources.  Upon termination of the new flow, the application network
   function again notifies the PCF function for removing the established
   bearers.  The PCF notifies the LMA for withdrawing the QoS resources
   establishes for that voice flow.  The LMA sends a Update Notification
   message to the MAG with the "Notification Reason" value set to "Force
   REREGISTER".  MAG on receiving this message Update Notification
   Acknowlegement and completes the PBU/PBA signaling for obtaining the
   new QoS parameters.  MAG provisions the newly obtained QoS parameters
   on the access network to ensure the dedicated network resources are
   now removed.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 37]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Appendix B.  Information when implementing PMIP based QoS support with
             IEEE 802.11e

   This section shows, as an example, the end-to-end QoS management with
   a 802.11e capable WLAN access link and a PMIP based QoS support.

   The 802.11e, or Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM), specification provides
   prioritization of packets for four types of traffic, or access
   categories (AC):

      Voice (AC_VO): Very high priority queue with minimum delay.  Time-
      sensitive data such as VoIP and streaming mode are automatically
      sent to this queue.

      Video (AC_VI): High priority queue with low delay.  Time-sensitive
      video data is automatically sent to this queue.

      Best effort (AC_BE): Medium priority queue with medium throughput
      and delay.  Most traditional IP data is sent to this queue.

      Background (AC_BK): Lowest priority queue with high throughput.
      Bulk data that requires maximum throughput but is not time-
      sensitive (for example, FTP data) is sent to the queue.

   The access point uses the 802.11e indicator to prioritize traffic on
   the WLAN interface.  On the wired side, the access point uses the
   802.1p priority tag and DiffServ code point (DSCP).  To allow
   consistent QoS management on both wireless and wired interfaces, the
   access point relies on the 802.11e specification which define mapping
   between the 802.11e access categories and the IEEE 802.1D priority
   (802.1p tag).  The end-to-end QoS architecture is depicted on
   Figure 8 and the 802.11e/802.1D priority mapping is reminded in the
   following table:

                      +-----------+------------------+
                      | 802.1e AC | 802.1D priority  |
                      +-----------+------------------+
                      |  AC_VO    |       7,6        |
                      +-----------+------------------+
                      |  AC_VI    |       5,4        |
                      +-----------+------------------+
                      |  AC_BE    |       0,3        |
                      +-----------+------------------+
                      |  AC_BK    |       2,1        |
                      +-----------+------------------+

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 38]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

                +=============+                          +-----+
                 DSCP/802.1p                             | PDP |
                 mapping table                           +-----+
                +=============+     PEP                     |
                         `._     +---+---+                  |
                            `._  |WiFi AR|    PMIPv6     +-----+
                               - + (MAG) +===============| LMA |
                                 |  WLC  |    tunnel     +-----+
                                 +-------+                 PEP
                                     |
                    ==Video==   802.11p/DSCP
                    ==Voice==        |
                    == B.E.==     +----+
             +----+               |WLAN| PEP
             | MN |----802.11e----| AP |
             +----+               +----+

             Figure 8: End-to-end QoS management with 802.11e

   When receiving a packet from the MN, the AP checks whether the frame
   contains 802.11e markings in the L2 header.  If not, the AP checks
   the DSCP field.  If the uplink packet contains the 802.11e marking,
   the access point maps the access categories to the corresponding
   802.1D priority as per the table above.  If the frame does not
   contain 802.11e marking, the access point examines the DSCP field.
   If DSCP is present, the AP maps DSCP values to a 802.1p value (i.e
   802.1D priority).  This mapping is not standardized and may differ
   between operator; a mapping example given in the following table.

                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                | Type of traffic   | 802.1p | DSCP value |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                |  Network Control  |   7    |     56     |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                |  Voice            |   6    |  46 (EF)   |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                |  Video            |   5    | 34 (AF 41) |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                |  voice control    |   4    | 26 (AF 31) |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                | Background Gold   |   2    | 18 (AF 21) |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                | Background Silver |   1    | 10 (AF 11) |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+
                |  Best effort      |  0,3   |  0 (BE)    |
                +-------------------+--------+------------+

   The access point prioritizes ingress traffic on the Ethernet port

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 39]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

   based on the 802.1p tag or the DSCP value.  If 802.1p priority tag is
   not present, the access point checks the DSCP/802.1p mapping table.
   The next step is to map the 802.1p priority to the appropriate egress
   queue.  When 802.11e support is enabled on the wireless link, the
   access point uses the IEEE standardized 802.1p/802.11e correspondence
   table to map the traffic to the appropriate hardware queues.

   When the 802.11e capable client sends traffic to the AP, it usually
   marks packets with a DSCP value.  In that case, the MAG/LMA can come
   into play for QoS renegotiation and call flows depicted in
   Section 3.3 apply.  Sometimes, when communication is initiated on the
   WLAN access, the application does not mark upstream packets.  If the
   uplink packet does not contain any QoS marking, the AP/MAG could
   determine the DSCP field according to traffic selectors received from
   the LMA.  Figure 9 gives the call flow corresponding to that use-case
   and shows where QoS tags mapping does come into play.  The main steps
   are as follows:

      (A): during MN attachment process, the MAG fetches QoS policies
      from the LMA.  After this step, both MAG and LMA are provisioned
      with QoS policies.

      (B): the MN starts a new IP communication without making IP
      packets with DSCP tags.  The MAG uses the traffic selector to
      determine the DSCP value, then it marks the IP packet and forwards
      within the PMIP tunnel.

      (C): the LMA checks the DSCP value with respect to the traffic
      selector.  If the QoS policies is valid, the LMA forwards the
      packet without renegociate QoS rules.

      (D): when receiving a marked packet, the MAG, the AP and the MN
      use 802.11e (or WMM), 802.11p tags and DSCP values to prioritize
      the traffic.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 40]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

     +--+            +--+             +---+                     +---+
     |MN|            |AP|             |MAG|                     |LMA|
     +--+            + -+             +---+                     +---+
   (A)|----attach-----|---------------->|-----------PBU---------->|
      |<--------------|---------------- |<----PBA[QoS option]-----|
      .               .            [QoS rules]              [QoS rules]
   (B).               .                 .                         |
     new session      |                 |                         |
      |----data[]---->|---data[]------->|-======data[DSCP]======->|
      |               |                 |                         |
   (C)|               |                 |              Validate QoS rule
      |               |                 |                         |---->
      |               |                 |<======data[DSCP]========|<----
      |               |                 |                         |
      |               |               mapping                     |
   (D)|               |            DSCP/802.1p                    |
      |               |<----data--------|                         |
      |               |  [802.1p/DSCP]  |                         |
      |               |                 |                         |
      |             mapping                                       |
      |          802.1p/802.11e         |                         |
      |<--data[WMM]---|                 |                         |
      |               |                 |                         |
      |---data[WMM]-->|-----data------->|=======data[DSCP]=======>|---->
      |               |  [802.1p/DSCP]  |                         |
      |               |                 |                         |

       Figure 9: Prioritization of a flow created on the WLAN access

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 41]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Appendix C.  Information when implementing with a Broadband Network
             Gateway

   This section shows an example of QoS interworking between the PMIPv6
   domain and the broadband access.  The Broadband Network Gateway (BNG)
   or Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS) has the MAG function and the
   CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) or Residential Gateway (RG) is
   connected via the broadband access network.  The MN is attached to
   the RG via e.g., WiFi AP in the broadband home network.  In the
   segment of the broadband access network, the BNG and RG are the
   Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) for the downlink and uplink traffic,
   respectively.  The QoS information is downloaded from the LMA to the
   BNG via the PMIPv6 with the QoS option defined in this document.
   Based on the received QoS parameters (e.g., DSCP values), the
   broadband access network and the RG provide appropriate QoS treatment
   to the downlink and uplink traffic to/from the MN.

                                                         +-----+
                                                         | PDP |
                                                         +-----+
                                    PEP                     |
                                 +-------+                  |
                                 | BNG/  |    PMIPv6     +-----+
                                 | BRAS  +===============| LMA |
                                 | (MAG) |    tunnel     +-----+
                                 +-------+                 PEP
                      Broadband  (   |   )
                        Access  (   DSCP  )
                       Network   (   |   )
                                  +-----+
               +----+             | CPE | PEP
               | MN |-------------| /RG |
               +----+  Broadband  +-----+
                      Home Network

      Figure 10: End-to-end QoS management with the broadband access
                                  network

   In the segment of the broadband access network, QoS mapping between
   3GPP QCI values and DSCP described in Section 3.2 is applied.  In the
   segment of the broadband home network, if the MN is attached to the
   RG via WiFi, the same QoS mapping as described in Appendix B can be
   applied.

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 42]
Internet-Draft      QoS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6       October 2013

Authors' Addresses

   Marco Liebsch
   NEC
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg  D-69115
   Germany

   Email: liebsch@neclab.eu

   Pierrick Seite
   Orange
   4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226
   Cesson-Sevigne  35512
   France

   Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com

   Hidetoshi Yokota
   KDDI Lab
   2-1-15 Ohara
   Saitama, Fujimino  356-8502
   Japan

   Email: yokota@kddilabs.jp

   Jouni Korhonen
   Renesas Mobile
   Porkkalankatu 24
   Helsinki  FIN-00180
   Finland

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com

   Sri Gundavelli
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sgundave@cisco.com

Liebsch, et al.          Expires April 24, 2014                [Page 43]