idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3963], [RFC4908], [RFC5213], [RFC6275]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 16, 2015) is 3053 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DMM WG P. Seite 3 Internet-Draft Orange 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Yegin 5 Expires: June 18, 2016 Samsung 6 S. Gundavelli 7 Cisco 8 December 16, 2015 10 MAG Multipath Binding Option 11 draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-00.txt 13 Abstract 15 The document [RFC4908] proposes to rely on multiple Care-of Addresses 16 (CoAs) capabilities of Mobile IP [RFC6275] an Network Mobility (NEMO; 17 [RFC3963]) to enable Multihoming technology for Small-Scale Fixed 18 Networks. In the continuation of [RFC4908], this document specifies 19 a multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy Mobile 20 IPv6 [RFC5213]. This extension allows a multihomed Mobile Access 21 Gateway (MAG) to register more than one proxy care-of-address to the 22 Local Mobility Anchor (LMA). 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.1. Example Call Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 4.2. MAG Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement . . . . 10 69 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 1. Introduction 79 Using several links, the multihoming technology can improve 80 connectivity availability and quality of communications; the goals 81 and benefits of multihoming are as follows: 83 o Redundancy/Fault-Recovery 85 o Load balancing 87 o Load sharing 89 o Preferences settings 91 According to [RFC4908], users of Small-Scale Networks can take 92 benefit of multihoming using mobile IP [RFC6275] and Network Mobility 93 (NEMO) [RFC3963] architecture in a mobile and fixed networking 94 environment. This document was introducing the concept of multiple 95 Care-of Addresses (CoAs) [RFC5648] that have been specified since 96 then. 98 In the continuation of [RFC4908], a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based 99 multihomed achitecture could be defined. The motivation to update 100 [RFC4908] with proxy Mobile IPv6 is to leverage on latest mobility 101 working group achievments, namely: 103 o using GRE as mobile tuneling, possibly with its key extension 104 [RFC5845] (a possible reason to use GRE is given on Section 3.2). 106 o using UDP encapsulation [RFC5844] in order to support NAT 107 traversal in IPv4 networking environment. 109 o Prefix Delegation mechanism [RFC7148]. 111 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) relies on two mobility entities: the 112 mobile access gateway (MAG), which acts as the default gateway for 113 the end-node and the local mobility anchor (LMA), which acts as the 114 topological anchor point. Point-to-point links are established, 115 using IP-in-IP tunnels, between MAG and LMA. Then, the MAG and LMA 116 are distributing traffic over these tunnels. All PMIPv6 operations 117 are performed on behalf of the end-node and its corespondent node, it 118 thus makes PMIPv6 well adapted to multihomed architecture as 119 considered in [RFC4908]. Taking the LTE and WLAN networking 120 environments as an example, the PMIPv6 based multihomed architecture 121 is depicted on Figure 1. Flow-1,2 and 3 are distributed either on 122 Tunnel-1 (over LTE) or Tunnel-2 (over WLAN), while Flow-4 is spread 123 on both Tunnel-1 and 2. 125 Flow-1 126 | 127 |Flow-2 _----_ 128 | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 129 | | .---=======( LTE )========\ Flow-1 130 | | | (_ _) \Flow-4 131 | | | '----' \ 132 | | +=====+ \ +=====+ _----_ 133 | '-| | \ | | _( )_ 134 '---| MAG | | LMA |-( Internet )-- 135 .---| | | | (_ _) 136 | .-| | / | | '----' 137 | | +=====+ / +=====+ 138 | | | _----_ / 139 | | | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 / 140 | | .---=======( WLAN )========/ Flow-2 141 | | (_ _) Flow-3 142 | | '----' Flow-4 143 |Flow-3 144 | 145 Flow0=-4 147 Figure 1: Multihomed MAG using Proxy Mobile IPv6 149 Current version of Proxy Mobile IPv6 does not allow a MAG to register 150 more than one proxy Care-of-Adresse to the LMA. In other words, only 151 one MAG/LMA link, i.e. IP-in-IP tunnel, tunnel can be used at the 152 same time. This document overcome this limitation by defining the 153 multiple proxy Care-of Addresses (pCoAs) extension for Proxy Mobile 154 IPv6. 156 2. Conventions and Terminology 158 2.1. Conventions 160 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 161 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 162 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 164 2.2. Terminology 166 All mobility related terms used in this document are to be 167 interpreted as defined in [RFC5213], [RFC5844] and [RFC7148]. 168 Additionally, this document uses the following terms: 170 IP-in-IP 172 IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473], [RFC4213] 174 3. Overview 176 3.1. Example Call Flow 178 Figure 2 is the callflow detailing multi-access support with PMIPv6. 179 The MAG in this example scenario is equipped with both WLAN and LTE 180 interfaces and is also configured with the MAG functionality. A 181 logical-NAI with ALWAYS-ON configuration is enabled on the MAG. The 182 mobility session that is created on the LMA is for the logical-NAI. 183 The IP hosts MN_1 and MN_2 are assigned IP addresses from the 184 delegated mobile network prefix. 186 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 187 | MN_1| | MN_2| | MAG | | WLAN| | LTE | | LMA | 188 +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ +=====+ 189 | | | | | | 190 | | | | | | 191 | | | (1) ATTACH | | | 192 | | | <--------> | | | 193 | | | (2) ATTACH | | 194 | | | <---------------------->| | 195 | | | (3) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 196 | | | ------------------------*----------> | 197 | | | (4) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 198 | | | <-----------------------*----------- | 199 | | | (5) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 200 | | |-============== TUNNEL ==*===========-| 201 | | | | 202 | | | (6) PBU (NAI, MAG-NAI, DMNP, MMB) | 203 | | | -----------*-----------------------> | 204 | | | (7) PBA (NAI, DMNP) | 205 | | | <----------*------------------------ | 206 | | | (8) TUNNEL INTERFACE CREATION | 207 | | |-===========*== TUNNEL ==============-| 208 | (9) | | 209 | <------------------> | | 210 | | (10) | | 211 | |<-----------> | | 213 Figure 2: Functional Separation of the Control and User Plane 215 3.2. Traffic distribution schemes 217 IP mobility protocols allow to establish the forwarding plane over 218 the WAN interfaces of a multihomed MAG. Then, traffic distribution 219 schemes define the way to distribute data packets over these paths 220 (i.e. IP tunnels). Traffic distribution can be managed either on a 221 per-flow or on a per-packet basis: 223 o per-flow traffic management: each IP flow (both upstream and 224 downstream) is mapped to a given mobile IP tunnel, corresponding 225 to a given WAN interface. This scenario is based on IP flow 226 mobility mechanism using the Flow binding extension [RFC6089]. 227 The mobility anchor provides IP session continuity when an IP flow 228 is moved from one WAN interfaces to another. The flow binding 229 extension allows the IP mobility anchor and the MAG to exchange, 230 and synchronize, IP flow management policies (i.e. policy routing 231 rules associating traffic selectors [RFC6088] to mobility 232 bindings). 234 o Per-packet management: distribute the IP packets of a same IP 235 flow, or of a group of IP flows, over more than one WAN interface. 236 In this scenario, traffic management slightly differs from the 237 default mobile IP behaviour; the mobility entities (mobility 238 anchor and client) distribute packets, belonging to a same IP 239 flow, over more than one bindings simultaneously. The definition 240 of control algorithm of a Per-packet distribution scheme (how to 241 distribute packets) is out the scope of this document. When 242 operating at the packet level, traffic distribution scheme may 243 introduce packet latency and out-of-order delivery. It may 244 require the mobility entities (MAG and mobility anchor) to be able 245 to reorder (ans thus, to buffer) received packets before 246 delivering. A possible implementation is to use GRE as mobile 247 tunnelling mechanism, together with the GRE KEY option [RFC5845] 248 to add sequence number to GRE packets, and so, to allow the 249 receiver to perform reordering. However, more detailed buffering 250 and reordering considerations are out of the scope of this 251 document. 253 The traffic distribution scheme may require the MAG and the to 254 exchange interface metrics to make traffic steering decision.For 255 example, the MAG may send it link bandwidth to the mobility anchor, 256 so that the latter can make traffic forwarding decision accordingly. 257 In this case, the vendor specific mobility option [RFC5094] can be 258 used for that purpose. 260 Per-flow and per-packet distribution schemes are not exclusive 261 mechanisms; they can cohabit in the same multi-access system. For 262 example, High throughput services (e.g. video streaming) may benefit 263 from per-packet distribution scheme, while some other may not. 264 Typically VoIP application are sensitive to latency and thus should 265 not be split over different WAN paths. In this situation, the 266 mobility entities (MAG and mobility anchor) must exchange traffic 267 management policies to associate distribution scheme, traffic and WAN 268 interface (physical or virtual). [RFC6088] and [RFC6089] define 269 traffic management on a flow basis but there is no such policy on a 270 per packet basis. 272 4. Protocol Extensions 274 4.1. MAG Multipath-Binding Option 276 The MAG Multipath-Binding option is a new mobility header option 277 defined for use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding 278 Acknowledgement messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor 279 and the mobile access gateway. 281 This mobility header option is used for requesting multipath support. 282 It indicates that the mobile access gateway is requesting the local 283 mobility anchor to register the current care-of address associated 284 with the request as one of the many care-addresses through which the 285 mobile access gateway can be reached. It is also for carrying the 286 information related to the access network associated with the care-of 287 address. 289 The MAG Multipath-Binding option has an alignment requirement of 290 8n+2. Its format is as shown in Figure 3: 292 0 1 2 3 293 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 1 294 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 295 | Type | Length | If-ATT | If-Label | 296 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 297 | Binding-Id |B|O| RESERVED | 298 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 300 Figure 3: MAG Multipath Binding Option 302 Type 304 To be assigned by IANA. 306 Length 308 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 309 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 311 This 8-bit field identifies the Access-Technology type of the 312 interface through which the mobile node is connected. The permitted 313 values for this are from the Access Technology Type registry defined 314 in [RFC5213]. 316 This 8-bit field represents the interface label represented as an 317 unsigned integer. The mobile node identifies the label for each of 318 the interfaces through which it registers a CoA with the home agent. 319 When using static traffic flow policies on the mobile node and the 320 home agent, the label can be used for generating forwarding policies. 321 For example, the operator may have policy which binds traffic for 322 Application "X" needs to interface with Label "Y". When a 323 registration through an interface matching Label "Y" gets activated, 324 the home agent and the mobile node can dynamically generate a 325 forwarding policy for forwarding traffic for Application "X" through 326 mobile IP tunnel matching Label "Y". Both the home agent and the 327 mobile node can route the Application-X traffic through that 328 interface. The permitted values for If-Label are 1 through 255. 330 This 8-bit field is used for carrying the binding identifier. It 331 uniquely identifies a specific binding of the mobile node, to which 332 this request can be associated. Each binding identifier is 333 represented as an unsigned integer. The permitted values are 1 334 through 254. The BID value of 0 and 255 are reserved. The mobile 335 access gateway assigns a unique value for each of its interfaces and 336 includes them in the message. 338 This flag, if set to a value of (1), is to notify the local mobility 339 anchor to consider this request as a request to update the binding 340 lifetime of all the mobile node's bindings, upon accepting this 341 specific request. This flag MUST NOT be set to a value of (1), if 342 the value of the Registration Overwrite Flag (O) flag is set to a 343 value of (1). 345 This flag, if set to a value of (1), notifies the local mobility 346 anchor that upon accepting this request, it should replace all of the 347 mobile node's existing bindings with this binding. This flag MUST 348 NOT be set to a value of (1), if the value of the Bulk Re- 349 registration Flag (B) is set to a value of (1). This flag MUST be 350 set to a value of (0), in de-registration requests. 352 Reserved 354 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 355 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 357 4.2. MAG Identifier Option 359 The MAG Identifier option is a new mobility header option defined for 360 use with Proxy Binding Update and Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 361 messages exchanged between the local mobility anchor and the mobile 362 access gateway. This mobility header option is used for conveying 363 the MAG's identity. 365 This option does not have any alignment requirements. 367 0 1 2 3 368 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 1 369 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 370 | Type | Length | Subtype | Reserved | 371 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 372 | Identifier ... ~ 373 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 375 Figure 4: MAG Identifier Option 377 Type 379 To be assigned by IANA. 381 Length 383 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in 384 octets, excluding the type and length fields. 386 Subtype 388 One byte unsigned integer used for identifying the type of the 389 Identifier field. Accepted values for this field are the 390 registered type values from the Mobile Node Identifier Option 391 Subtypes registry. 393 Reserved 395 This field is unused in this specification. The value MUST be set 396 to zero (0) by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. 398 Identifier 400 A variable length identifier of type indicated in the Subtype 401 field. 403 4.3. New Status Code for Proxy Binding Acknowledgement 405 This document defines the following new Status Code value for use in 406 Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message. 408 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING (Cannot Support Multipath Binding): 409 411 5. IANA Considerations 413 This document requires the following IANA actions. 415 o Action-1: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 416 MAG Multipath-Binding option. The format of this option is 417 described in Section 4.1. The type value for this 418 mobility option needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options 419 registry at . 420 RFC Editor: Please replace in Section 4.1 with the 421 assigned value and update this section accordingly. 423 o Action-2: This specification defines a new mobility option, the 424 MAG Identifier option. The format of this option is described in 425 Section 4.2. The type value for this mobility option 426 needs to be allocated from the Mobility Options registry at 427 . RFC 428 Editor: Please replace in Section 4.2 with the assigned 429 value and update this section accordingly. 431 o Action-4: This document defines a new status value, 432 CANNOT_SUPPORT_MULTIPATH_BINDING () for use in Proxy 433 Binding Acknowledgement message, as described in Section 4.3. 434 This value is to be assigned from the "Status Codes" registry at 435 . The 436 allocated value has to be greater than 127. RFC Editor: Please 437 replace in Section 4.3 with the assigned value and update 438 this section accordingly. 440 6. Security Considerations 442 This specification allows a mobile access gateway to establish 443 multiple Proxy Mobile IPv6 tunnels with a local mobility anchor, by 444 registering a care-of address for each of its connected access 445 networks. This essentially allows the mobile node's IP traffic to be 446 routed through any of the tunnel paths and either based on a static 447 or a dynamically negotiated flow policy. This new capability has no 448 impact on the protocol security. Furthermore, this specification 449 defines two new mobility header options, MAG Multipath-Binding option 450 and the MAG Identifier option. These options are carried like any 451 other mobility header option as specified in [RFC5213]. Therefore, 452 it inherits security guidelines from [RFC5213]. Thus, this 453 specification does not weaken the security of Proxy Mobile IPv6 454 Protocol, and does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. 456 7. Acknowledgements 458 The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge the discussions 459 and feedback on this topic from the members of the DMM working group. 461 8. References 463 8.1. Normative References 465 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 466 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 467 RFC2119, March 1997, 468 . 470 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 471 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 472 RFC 3963, DOI 10.17487/RFC3963, January 2005, 473 . 475 [RFC5094] Devarapalli, V., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv6 476 Vendor Specific Option", RFC 5094, DOI 10.17487/RFC5094, 477 December 2007, . 479 [RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., 480 Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", 481 RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008, 482 . 484 [RFC5648] Wakikawa, R., Ed., Devarapalli, V., Tsirtsis, G., Ernst, 485 T., and K. Nagami, "Multiple Care-of Addresses 486 Registration", RFC 5648, DOI 10.17487/RFC5648, 487 October 2009, . 489 [RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy 490 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010, 491 . 493 [RFC5845] Muhanna, A., Khalil, M., Gundavelli, S., and K. Leung, 494 "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy 495 Mobile IPv6", RFC 5845, DOI 10.17487/RFC5845, June 2010, 496 . 498 [RFC6088] Tsirtsis, G., Giarreta, G., Soliman, H., and N. Montavont, 499 "Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings", RFC 6088, 500 DOI 10.17487/RFC6088, January 2011, 501 . 503 [RFC6089] Tsirtsis, G., Soliman, H., Montavont, N., Giaretta, G., 504 and K. Kuladinithi, "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and 505 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support", RFC 6089, 506 DOI 10.17487/RFC6089, January 2011, 507 . 509 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility 510 Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, 511 July 2011, . 513 [RFC7148] Zhou, X., Korhonen, J., Williams, C., Gundavelli, S., and 514 CJ. Bernardos, "Prefix Delegation Support for Proxy Mobile 515 IPv6", RFC 7148, DOI 10.17487/RFC7148, March 2014, 516 . 518 8.2. Informative References 520 [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in 521 IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, 522 December 1998, . 524 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 525 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/ 526 RFC4213, October 2005, 527 . 529 [RFC4908] Nagami, K., Uda, S., Ogashiwa, N., Esaki, H., Wakikawa, 530 R., and H. Ohnishi, "Multi-homing for small scale fixed 531 network Using Mobile IP and NEMO", RFC 4908, DOI 10.17487/ 532 RFC4908, June 2007, 533 . 535 Authors' Addresses 537 Pierrick Seite 538 Orange 539 4, rue du Clos Courtel, BP 91226 540 Cesson-Sevigne 35512 541 France 543 Email: pierrick.seite@orange.com 545 Alper Yegin 546 Samsung 547 Istanbul 548 Turkey 550 Email: alper.yegin@partner.samsung.com 552 Sri Gundavelli 553 Cisco 554 170 West Tasman Drive 555 San Jose, CA 95134 556 USA 558 Email: sgundave@cisco.com