draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-14.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15.txt 
V6OPS Working Group D. Binet V6OPS Working Group D. Binet
Internet-Draft M. Boucadair Internet-Draft M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational France Telecom Intended status: Informational France Telecom
Expires: June 4, 2015 A. Vizdal Expires: July 16, 2015 A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
G. Chen G. Chen
China Mobile China Mobile
N. Heatley N. Heatley
EE EE
R. Chandler R. Chandler
eircom | meteor eircom | meteor
December 1, 2014 January 12, 2015
An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-14 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the
recommend in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or
dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE
802.11 network).
This document defines a different profile than the one for general
connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. In Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This
particular, this document identifies also features to deliver IPv4 document identifies features to deliver IPv4 connectivity service
connectivity service over an IPv6-only transport. over an IPv6-only transport as well as the required features to
connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless
network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network).
Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area
Network) connectivity are in scope. Network) connectivity are in scope.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2015.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 11 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 10
5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only perennial IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only perennial
solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks.
Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are
in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles encountered by in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles encountered by
mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6
implementation in mobile devices. implementation in mobile devices.
[RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts [RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts
to connect to 3GPP mobile networks. In the light of recent IPv6 to connect to 3GPP mobile networks. In the light of recent IPv6
production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only
deployments while accessing IPv4-only service are to be considered. deployments while accessing IPv4-only service are to be considered.
This document defines a different profile than the one for general
connection to IPv6 mobile networks defined in [RFC7066]; in
particular:
o It lists an extended list of features while [RFC7066] identifies
issues and explains how to implement basic IPv6 features in a
cellular context.
o It identifies also features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over
an IPv6-only transport.
This document defines an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing This document defines an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing
specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations
(in particular 3GPP and IETF). The objectives of this effort are: (in particular 3GPP and IETF). The objectives of this effort are:
1. List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features 1. List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features
for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack
mobile deployment contexts. These features cover various network mobile deployment contexts. These features cover various network
types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EPC (Evolved types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EPC (Evolved
Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network. Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network.
2. Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list 2. Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list
preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is
also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards
device vendors. device vendors.
3. Vendors to be aware of a set of features to allow for IPv6 3. Vendors to be aware of a set of features to allow for IPv6
connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only
transport). transport).
Pointers to some requirements listed in [RFC6434] are included in
this profile. The justification for using a stronger language
compared to what is specified in [RFC6434] is provided for some
recommendations.
The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details. For more The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details. For more
information on the 3GPP releases detail, the reader may refer to information on the 3GPP releases detail, the reader may refer to
Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. Section 6.2 of [RFC6459].
Some of the features listed in this profile document require to Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope
of this document to list these network-side functions. of this document to list these network-side functions.
A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
in [RFC6459]. in [RFC6459].
skipping to change at page 4, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some
LAN functions (e.g., mobile CPE or broadband dongles). LAN functions (e.g., mobile CPE or broadband dongles).
The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and
3GPP EPS (Evolved Packet System) access. For EPS, PDN-Connection 3GPP EPS (Evolved Packet System) access. For EPS, PDN-Connection
term is used instead of PDP-Context. term is used instead of PDP-Context.
This document identifies also some WLAN-related IPv6 recommendations. This document identifies also some WLAN-related IPv6 recommendations.
Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402] are out of scope of this document. Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402] are out of scope of this document.
This profile is a superset of that of the IPv6 profile for 3GPP
Cellular Hosts [RFC7066], which is in turn a superset of IPv6 Node
Requirements [RFC6434]. It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS,
EPC (Evolved Packet Core) and IEEE 802.11 networks, that require
features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over an IPv6-only transport
in addition to the base IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile covers
cellular CPEs that are used in various deployments to offer fixed-
like services. Recommendations inspired from real deployment
experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this
profile sketches recommendations for the sake of deterministic
behaviors of cellular devices when the same configuration information
is received over several channels.
For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g.,
Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066].
Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in
3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey IPv6 prefix
towards the 3GPP cellular device. In particular, MTU (Maximum
Transmission Unit) communication via Router Advertisement must be
supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU
setting.
This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix
Delegation compared to [RFC7066]. The main motivation is that
cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to
fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with
the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for
an efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to cellular
hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-
link subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality
in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile
convergence.
2. Connectivity Recommendations 2. Connectivity Recommendations
This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be
followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6. Both followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6. Both
dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4
service continuity features are listed in this section because these service continuity features are listed in this section because these
are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model.
C_REC#1: The cellular host must be compliant with Section 5.9.1 C_REC#1: In order to allow each operator to select their own
(IPv6 Addressing Architecture) and Section 5.8 (ICMPv6 strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host
support) of [RFC6434]. must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported. IPv4,
C_REC#2: In order to allow each operator to select their own IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on
strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host the cellular network configuration.
must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported.
IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance
depends on the cellular network configuration.
C_REC#3: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in
[TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP-
Context type. In particular, the cellular host must
request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular
host is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if
the cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host
is not aware of connectivity types requested by devices
connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities
as discussed in Section 4):
* If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by
the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed,
then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4
address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must
initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to
the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point
Name).
* If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows
only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular
host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same
APN for the other IP address family.
The text above focuses on the specification part which
explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-
Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to
avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular
devices.
C_REC#4: The cellular host must support the PCO (Protocol
Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6
address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s).
In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the
cellular host about various services, including DNS
server information. It does not require any specific
protocol to be supported and it is already deployed in
IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information.
C_REC#5: The cellular host must support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow
Templates (TFT) [TS.24008].
Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to
couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a
dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be
provided by the cellular network for certain IP
traffic.
C_REC#6: The cellular host must support the Neighbor Discovery
Protocol ([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]).
This is a stronger form compared to what is specified
in Section 5.2 and Section 12.2 of [RFC6434].
The support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory
in 3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to
convey IPv6 prefix towards the 3GPP cellular device.
In particular, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit)
communication via Router Advertisement must be
supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a
standard MTU setting.
C_REC#7: The cellular host must comply with Section 5.6.1 of
[RFC6434]. If the MTU used by cellular hosts is larger
than 1280 bytes, they can rely on Path MTU discovery
function to discover the real path MTU.
C_REC#8: The cellular host must support IPv6 Stateless Address C_REC#2: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in
Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) apart from the exceptions [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP-
noted in [TS.23060] (3G) and [TS.23401] (LTE): Context type. In particular, the cellular host must
request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host
is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the
cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is
not aware of connectivity types requested by devices
connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities
as discussed in Section 4):
Stateless mode is the only way to configure a cellular * If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by
host. The GGSN/PGW must allocate a prefix that is the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed,
unique within its scope to each primary PDP-Context. then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4
address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must
initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to
the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point
Name).
To configure its link local address, the cellular host * If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows
must use the Interface Identifier conveyed in 3GPP PDP- only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular
Context setup signaling received from a GGSN/PGW. The host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same
cellular host may use a different Interface Identifiers APN for the other IP address family.
to configure its global addresses (see also A_REC#1
about privacy addressing recommendation).
For more details, refer to [RFC6459] and [RFC7066]. The text above focuses on the specification part which
explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-
Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to
avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular
devices.
C_REC#9: The cellular host must comply with Section 7.3 of C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the PCO (Protocol
[RFC6434]. Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6
address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s).
C_REC#10: The cellular host must comply with Section 7.2.1 of In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the
[RFC6434]. cellular host about various services, including DNS
server information. It does not require any specific
protocol to be supported and it is already deployed in
IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information.
Stateless DHCPv6 is useful to retrieve other C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow
information than DNS. Templates (TFT) [TS.24008].
If [RFC6106] is not supported at the network side, the Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to
cellular host should retrieve DNS information using couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a
stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736]. dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be
provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic.
C_REC#11: If the cellular host receives the DNS information in C_REC#5: If the cellular host receives the DNS information in
several channels for the same interface, the following several channels for the same interface, the following
preference order must be followed: preference order must be followed:
1. PCO 1. PCO
2. RA 2. RA
3. DHCPv6 3. DHCPv6
C_REC#12: The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit C_REC#6: The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit
PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow
all supported PDP types. Note, C_REC#3 discusses the all supported PDP types. Note, C_REC#2 discusses the
default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s). default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s).
This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE
to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints
such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE),
LTE), (2) network conditions with regards to the (2) network conditions with regards to the support of
support of specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not
is not supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription
subscription data, etc. data, etc.
C_REC#13: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be C_REC#7: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be
experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host
must be able to be configured with a home IP profile and a must be able to be configured with a home IP profile and a
roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to
limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when
out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s)
and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases. and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases.
C_REC#14: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only C_REC#8: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
deployment context, the cellular host should support a deployment context, the cellular host should support a
method to locally construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses method to locally construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
[RFC6052]. A method to learn PREFIX64 should be supported [RFC6052]. A method to learn PREFIX64 should be supported
by the cellular host. by the cellular host.
This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 This solves the issue when applications use IPv4
referrals on IPv6-only access networks. referrals on IPv6-only access networks.
In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow
[RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream [RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream
PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the
the cellular host should implement the method specified cellular host should implement the method specified in
in [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64.
C_REC#15: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only C_REC#9: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
deployment context, the cellular host should implement the deployment context, the cellular host should implement the
Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which
is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146].
CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only
application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only
connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability
capability [RFC6146] in the core network. [RFC6146] in the core network.
The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is
defined in [RFC7335]. defined in [RFC7335].
2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations
It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a WLAN interface in It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a WLAN interface in
addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to be addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to be
connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some
generic recommendations: generic recommendations:
W_REC#1: IPv6 must be supported on the WLAN interface. In W_REC#1: IPv6 must be supported on the WLAN interface. In
particular, WLAN interface must behave properly when only particular, WLAN interface must behave properly when only
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
handsets can access a WLAN IPv6-only network by handsets can access a WLAN IPv6-only network by
configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the
device is connected to the network and the wlan0 device is connected to the network and the wlan0
interface got an IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address interface got an IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address
can be deleted from the configuration. This avoids the can be deleted from the configuration. This avoids the
device to ask automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and device to ask automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and
allows to connect to IPv6-only networks. Failing to allows to connect to IPv6-only networks. Failing to
configure an IPv4 address on the interface must not configure an IPv4 address on the interface must not
prohibit using IPv6 on the same interface. prohibit using IPv6 on the same interface.
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) W_REC#2: If the device receives the DNS information in several
must be supported.
W_REC#2: DHCPv6 client should be supported on WLAN interface.
Refer to Section 7.2.1 of [RFC6434].
W_REC#3: WLAN interface should support Router Advertisement Options
for DNS configuration (See Section 7.3 of [RFC6434]).
W_REC#4: If the device receives the DNS information in several
channels for the same interface, the following preference channels for the same interface, the following preference
order must be followed: order must be followed:
1. RA 1. RA
2. DHCPv6 2. DHCPv6
3. Advanced Recommendations 3. Advanced Recommendations
This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to meet This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
regulatory constraints in some countries, fulfill requirements of requirements of critical services such as VoLTE.
critical services such as VoLTE, or enforce policies such as traffic
offload.
A_REC#1: The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses
which preserve privacy.
The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using
[RFC4941] or [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track
a host over time when compared to using a permanent
Interface Identifier. Note, [RFC4941] does not require
any DAD mechanism to be activated as the GGSN/PGW must
not configure any global address based on the prefix
allocated to the cellular host.
Tracking a host is still possible based on the first 64
bits of the IPv6 address. Means to prevent against such
tracking issues may be enabled in the network side.
Privacy extensions are required by regulatory bodies in
some countries.
A_REC#2: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001) A_REC#1: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001)
and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other
ROHC profiles may be supported. ROHC profiles may be supported.
Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much
as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce
bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having
bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4.
"RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP
packets [RFC3550] and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to packets and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress
compress RTCP packets [RFC3550] are required for Voice RTCP packets are required for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) by
over LTE (VoLTE) by IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates
[IR92] indicates also the host must be able to apply the also the host must be able to apply the compression to
compression to packets that are carried over the radio packets that are carried over the radio bearer dedicated
bearer dedicated for the voice media. for the voice media.
A_REC#3: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887]. A_REC#2: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887].
The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery
consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also
gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections
to the cellular device. Indeed, because several to the cellular device. Indeed, because several
stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks
(e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), PCP can be used by the (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), PCP can be used by the
cellular host to control network-based NAT and Firewall cellular host to control network-based NAT and Firewall
functions which will reduce per-application signaling functions which will reduce per-application signaling
and save battery consumption. and save battery consumption.
skipping to change at page 10, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to 29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to
16 mA (2G)/24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to 16 mA (2G)/24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to
40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G)/16 mA (3G) if the interval is 40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G)/16 mA (3G) if the interval is
equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if
the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep- the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep-
alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA
(2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages (2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages
would be more severe if multiple applications are would be more severe if multiple applications are
issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.). issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.).
A_REC#4: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security A_REC#3: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security
Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only
with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should
embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]). embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]).
This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in
[RFC6147]. [RFC6147].
As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security- As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security-
aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64
function locally. function locally.
Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully
validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to
construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use
of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034], [RFC4035]. Means to of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034], [RFC4035]. Means to
configure or discover a PREFIX64 are required on the configure or discover a PREFIX64 are required on the
cellular device as discussed in C_REC#14. cellular device as discussed in C_REC#8.
[RFC7051] discusses why a security-aware and validating [RFC7051] discusses why a security-aware and validating
host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why
it has to be able to learn the proper PREFIX64(s). it has to be able to learn the proper PREFIX64(s).
A_REC#5: When the cellular host is dual-stack connected (i.e., A_REC#4: When the cellular host is dual-stack connected (i.e.,
configured with an IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix), it should configured with an IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix), it should
support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over
connection established through translation devices (e.g., connection established through translation devices (e.g.,
NAT44 and NAT64). NAT44 and NAT64).
When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a
dual-stack host must contact first its IPv6 DNS server. dual-stack host must contact first its IPv6 DNS server.
Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in
[RFC6724] for source address selection. [RFC6724] for source address selection.
A_REC#6: The cellular host should support Happy Eyeballs procedure A_REC#5: The cellular host should support Happy Eyeballs procedure
defined in [RFC6555]. defined in [RFC6555].
A_REC#7: The cellular host must comply with Section 5.3 of [RFC6434]
and should support Router Advertisement extension for
communicating default router preferences and more-specific
routes as described in [RFC4191].
This function can be used for instance for traffic
offload.
4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities
This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones, or This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones, or
dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to
other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices
are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In addition to the are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In addition to the
generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices
have to meet the recommendations listed below. have to meet the recommendations listed below.
L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
recommended to accommodate early deployments. recommended to accommodate early deployments.
L_REC#2: The cellular CPE must be compliant with the requirements L_REC#2: The cellular CPE must be compliant with the requirements
specified in [RFC6204]. specified in [RFC6204].
There are several deployments, particularly in emerging There are several deployments, particularly in emerging
countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide
broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with
mobile CPEs). mobile CPEs).
Note, even if RFC7084 obsoletes [RFC6204], this profile
does not require RFC7084 because IPv4 service continuity
techniques used in mobile networks are not the same as
in fixed networks.
L_REC#3: For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the L_REC#3: For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the
cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing
a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN/ a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN/
PGW (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces. PGW (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.
Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#1) is the target Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#1) is the target
solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but, solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but,
because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release
networks, a mean to share a /64 prefix is also networks, a mean to share a /64 prefix is also
recommended [RFC7278]. recommended [RFC7278].
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 13, line 13
correction defined in [RFC5954]. correction defined in [RFC5954].
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are
to be taken into account. to be taken into account.
Security-related considerations that apply when the cellular device Security-related considerations that apply when the cellular device
provides LAN features are specified in [RFC6092]. provides LAN features are specified in [RFC6092].
Address privacy considerations are discussed in A_REC#1 (see The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which
Section 3). Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#4 preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using
(see Section 3). [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when
compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host
is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address.
Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the
network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory
bodies in some countries.
Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see
Section 3).
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any action from IANA. This document does not require any action from IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T.
Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V. Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V.
Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, and T. Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, and T.
Kossut for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list. Kossut for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list.
Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, and J. Jaeggli for Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the comments
their detailed reviews and comments. during the IESG review.
Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, and F.
Baker for their detailed reviews and comments.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March [IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March
2011, <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/ 2011, <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/
ir-92-v4-0-ims-profile-for-voice-and-sms>. ir-92-v4-0-ims-profile-for-voice-and-sms>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
skipping to change at page 15, line 38 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
October 2003. October 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003. December 2003.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005. 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust
Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March
2010. 2010.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010.
[RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential
Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261",
RFC 5954, August 2010. RFC 5954, August 2010.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010. October 2010.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan,
"Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
skipping to change at page 16, line 49 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
[Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy [Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy
Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks", Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks",
April 2007, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/ April 2007, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4212635>. articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4212635>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M. [RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC
3948, January 2005. 3948, January 2005.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
4033, March 2005. 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005. RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January
2011. 2011.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, November 2010.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
275 lines changed or deleted 184 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/