1. Support for Flow bindings in MIPv6 and NEMOH.

2. Objectives Discuss the relevant scenarios for Flow-based routing.
Discuss existing solutions.
Way forward.

3. What is a Flow?
A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular source to a particular (unicast or multicast) destination.
An IPv6 Flow can be uniquely identified using:
Src, dst addresses, port numbers, and proto.
Src, dst addresses and Flow Label
Src, dst addresses and SPI (for IPsec protected packets)

4. Why is Flow binding needed?
Different access technologies have different capabilities, capacities, cost, use cases, QoS, and security.
Applications may run more efficiently on one access technology than others (e.g. VoIP needs QoS capabilities in the radio access, FTP doesn’t).
Different access technologies may be available through different IP subnets.
MNs should be able to maximise the utilization of the available access technologies.
MIPv6 does not allow a MN to allocate different CoAs to different flows.

5. Correspondent Node (CN) Correspondent Node (CN)
Scenarios
Home Agent
Correspondent Node (CN)
Home Network
Correspondent Node (CN) AR AR
Access technology A
Access Technology B
Mobile Node (MN)

6. Correspondent Node (CN)
Scenarios
Correspondent Node (CN)
Home Agent
Home Network AR AR
Access technology A
Access Technology B
Mobile Node (MN)

7. Current proposals draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt
Allows MNs to add/remove filters at the HA using the BU/BA.
Allows for filtering based on addresses, port numbers and protocol numbers.

8. Current proposals draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-02.txt
Allows MNs to add/remove filters at the HA/MAP/CN using the BU/BA.
Allows for filtering based on addresses, port numbers, protocol numbers, Traffic Class, and Flow Label.

9. Current proposals draft-soliman-mobileip-flow-move-03
Allows MNs to add/remove filters at the HA/MAP/CN using the BU/BA.
Allows for filtering based on addresses, port numbers, protocol numbers, and Flow Label.

10. Points of agreement Use the BU/BA to set filters for different flows.
Receivers of the BU would route according to the filters received.
Filtering should be done based on addresses, port numbers, proto, Flow label.
The final solution should be applicable to hosts and routers?

11. Differences
Differences are very minor and should not impede the merger:
Message formats.
Use of Traffic Class field.

12. Issues to be addressed Support for MRs
Limit to different interfaces or apply to different prefixes??
Optimal design for efficient transmission over the wireless interface?
Issues with MIPv6 transition work?
Security issues

13. Out of scope
Local policies in the MN that decide which flow should be associated with which interface/CoA.