RFC 7222: Quality-of-Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This specification defines a new mobility option, the Quality-of- Service (QoS) option, for Proxy Mobile IPv6. This option can be used by the local mobility anchor and the mobile access gateway for negotiating Quality-of-Service parameters for a mobile node's IP flows. The negotiated QoS parameters can be used for QoS policing and marking 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 mobile access gateway enables mapping of these parameters to QoS rules that are specific to the access technology and allows those rules to be enforced on the access network using access-technology-specific approaches.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7222
- Published
- May 2014
- Authors
- M. Liebsch; P. Seite; H. Yokota; J. Korhonen; S. Gundavelli
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 58
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7141Byte and Packet Congestion NotificationCurrent
February 2014
- RFC 7713Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and RequirementsCurrent
December 2015
- RFC 6660Encoding Three Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) States in the IP Header Using a Single Diffserv Codepoint (DSCP)Current
July 2012
- RFC 7837IPv6 Destination Option for Congestion Exposure (ConEx)Current
May 2016
- RFC 8325Mapping Diffserv to IEEE 802.11Updated
February 2018
- RFC 5696Baseline Encoding and Transport of Pre-Congestion InformationObsoleted
November 2009
- RFC 5559Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) ArchitectureCurrent
June 2009
- RFC 9330Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: ArchitectureCurrent
January 2023
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?