Do you mean draft-deng-mptcp-mobile-network-proxy-00 I-D ? - Jouni
On Feb 21, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Xiongchunshan (Sam) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello folks, > > Here I have some comments on this document: > > 1) > 5.2 Traffic mediation > (a) Anchoring of sub-flow traffic: On one hand, it is not always > possible for a single GW be sitting on the path of every sub-flow > from a MPTCP session, hence explicit traffic anchoring to enable a > single point of general control over MPTCP sub-flows should be > considered. > (b) Mediation of sub-flow traffic: On the other hand, for fine- > grained mediation of sub-flow traffic, both static and dynamic > selection/offloading/pooling policies should be allowed. For > instance, "always prefer Wi-Fi over 3GPP" could be a static policy > for bulk data transfer services, while "use 3GPP only for backup > unless Wi-Fi is congested" could be a dynamic offloading policy for a > un-prioritized VoIP service. > [xcs]Question for clarification: How does the MPTCP proxy know the binding > information between the IP and RAT ? The mobile node knows which IP is > allocated from which RAT, but it is very hard for the MPTCP Proxy in the core > network to know these mapping information. > One possible solution is the PCRF (defined in the 3GPP) to provide these > binding information to the MPTCP proxy if the MPTCP proxy performance the > traffic mediation or let the mobile to do the traffic mediation. > > Another question is how the rules (e.g. "always prefer Wi-Fi over 3GPP") are > provided to the MPTCP Proxy or the mobile ? For the MPTCP proxy, it is again > the PCRF; for the mobile , it is the ANDSF ? > > > 2) > 4.2 Resource pooling for reduced expense > Due to its low construction and operation expenses, Wi-Fi has been > adopted by mobile operators as a complementary RAT for their > traditional 3GPP networks. However, different construction and > operation expenses of various radio networks result in differences in > charging rates/policies for different RATs. > For instance, Wi-Fi access may be charged by the access duration, > while the 3GPP access may be charged by the consumed data volume. > Even if using the same policy, Wi-Fi service is expected to be much > cheaper than 3GPP data service. > Moreover, different subscription packages may offer various data > plans for various RATs. For instance, a basic 4G package may contain > free data volume as well free Wi-Fi access too. > By enabling MPTCP session between UE and network proxy, via mediating > sub-flow data traffic based on their Radio access types and the > user’s subscription package, it is possible to further reduce the > usage expenses from both sides of the network and user. > > [xcs] it will benefit the user if the user’s expense of data usage is > reduced, if the WiFi connection is available and charging fee is very low, > maybe all the traffic from the 4G are moved to the WiFi by the MPTCP proxy, > and the mobility and QoS of the service maybe aren’t ensured, so it is > proposed to adding the following sentence to the end of this chapter: > The QoS/QoE/Service continuity of the current data services are still kept > when the MPTCP proxy is used to reduce the user’s usage expenses. > > A assumption for reducing user expense is that the WiFi connection is > activated beforehand, but sometimes the WiFi connection isn’t activated or a > wrong WiFi AP is selected by the user( that MPTCP Proxy can’t access the WiFi > IP flow), that is, one hand, the network need to control the MPTCP Proxy to > mediate the IP flows, another hand, the network should tell the mobile to > open which RAT/WiFi to make the MPTCP Proxy work. i.e. the network should > provide some information to the UE , to guide the UE to select and open > another RAT to enable the MPTCP. > > > 3) > 4.1 Dynamic traffic offloading based on network information > For real-time interactive services with higher QoS requirements it is > expected that 3GPP network can provide better guarantees on the > average case. For bulk data transfer who is satisfied with best- > effort delivery, Wi-Fi would be a great choice. But the vertical > partition does not fit everywhere for the wireless condition itself > is quite dynamic and hard to predict. It is important to implement > adaptive offloading mechanisms in order to achieve higher resource > utility with ever changing radio environment for a possibly moving > terminal based on network status, e.g. cell load, AP’s signal > intensity, user’s subscription type, etc. > [xcs]The same question from 1): How does the MPTCP Proxy/UE know the network > status ? The PCRF/ANDSF provides these information to the MPTCP Proxy/UE ? > > > > BRs > Chunshan Xiong > Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
