--- 1/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-14.txt 2015-01-12 03:14:51.686549709 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15.txt 2015-01-12 03:14:51.726550693 -0800 @@ -1,140 +1,122 @@ V6OPS Working Group D. Binet Internet-Draft M. Boucadair Intended status: Informational France Telecom -Expires: June 4, 2015 A. Vizdal +Expires: July 16, 2015 A. Vizdal Deutsche Telekom AG G. Chen China Mobile N. Heatley EE R. Chandler eircom | meteor - December 1, 2014 + January 12, 2015 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 - This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators - 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 + This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third - Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. In - particular, this document identifies also features to deliver IPv4 - connectivity service over an IPv6-only transport. + Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This + document identifies features to deliver IPv4 connectivity service + 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 Network) connectivity are in scope. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (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. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 11 - 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 10 + 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only perennial solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles encountered by mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 implementation in mobile devices. [RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts to connect to 3GPP mobile networks. In the light of recent IPv6 production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only 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 specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations (in particular 3GPP and IETF). The objectives of this effort are: 1. List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack mobile deployment contexts. These features cover various network types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EPC (Evolved Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network. 2. Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards device vendors. 3. Vendors to be aware of a set of features to allow for IPv6 connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only 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 information on the 3GPP releases detail, the reader may refer to Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. Some of the features listed in this profile document require to activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope of this document to list these network-side functions. A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided in [RFC6459]. @@ -175,46 +157,75 @@ sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some LAN functions (e.g., mobile CPE or broadband dongles). The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and 3GPP EPS (Evolved Packet System) access. For EPS, PDN-Connection term is used instead of PDP-Context. This document identifies also some WLAN-related IPv6 recommendations. 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 This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6. Both dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service continuity features are listed in this section because these are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. - C_REC#1: The cellular host must be compliant with Section 5.9.1 - (IPv6 Addressing Architecture) and Section 5.8 (ICMPv6 - support) of [RFC6434]. - - C_REC#2: In order to allow each operator to select their own + C_REC#1: In order to allow each operator to select their own strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host 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. + 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 + C_REC#2: 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 + 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). @@ -223,144 +234,93 @@ 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 + C_REC#3: 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 + C_REC#4: 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 - Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) apart from the exceptions - noted in [TS.23060] (3G) and [TS.23401] (LTE): - - Stateless mode is the only way to configure a cellular - host. The GGSN/PGW must allocate a prefix that is - unique within its scope to each primary PDP-Context. - - To configure its link local address, the cellular host - must use the Interface Identifier conveyed in 3GPP PDP- - Context setup signaling received from a GGSN/PGW. The - cellular host may use a different Interface Identifiers - to configure its global addresses (see also A_REC#1 - about privacy addressing recommendation). - - For more details, refer to [RFC6459] and [RFC7066]. - - C_REC#9: The cellular host must comply with Section 7.3 of - [RFC6434]. - - C_REC#10: The cellular host must comply with Section 7.2.1 of - [RFC6434]. - - Stateless DHCPv6 is useful to retrieve other - information than DNS. - - If [RFC6106] is not supported at the network side, the - cellular host should retrieve DNS information using - stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736]. + 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 preference order must be followed: 1. PCO 2. RA 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 - 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). This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints - such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over - LTE), (2) network conditions with regards to the - support of specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context - is not supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) - subscription data, etc. + such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE), + (2) network conditions with regards to the support of + specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not + supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription + 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 must be able to be configured with a home IP profile and a roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) 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 method to locally construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052]. A method to learn PREFIX64 should be supported by the cellular host. This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 referrals on IPv6-only access networks. In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow [RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream - PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, - the cellular host should implement the method specified - in [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. + PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the + cellular host should implement the method specified in + [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 Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only - connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 - capability [RFC6146] in the core network. + connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability + [RFC6146] in the core network. The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is defined in [RFC7335]. 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a WLAN interface in addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to be connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some generic recommendations: @@ -374,81 +334,51 @@ handsets can access a WLAN IPv6-only network by configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the device is connected to the network and the wlan0 interface got an IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address can be deleted from the configuration. This avoids the device to ask automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and allows to connect to IPv6-only networks. Failing to configure an IPv4 address on the interface must not prohibit using IPv6 on the same interface. - IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) - 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 + W_REC#2: If the device receives the DNS information in several channels for the same interface, the following preference order must be followed: 1. RA 2. DHCPv6 3. Advanced Recommendations - This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to meet - regulatory constraints in some countries, fulfill requirements of - 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. + This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill + requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. - 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 ROHC profiles may be supported. Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP - packets [RFC3550] and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to - compress RTCP packets [RFC3550] are required for Voice - over LTE (VoLTE) by IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, - [IR92] indicates also the host must be able to apply the - compression to packets that are carried over the radio - bearer dedicated for the voice media. + packets and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress + RTCP packets are required for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) by + IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates + also the host must be able to apply the compression to + packets that are carried over the radio bearer dedicated + 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 consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections to the cellular device. Indeed, because several stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), PCP can be used by the cellular host to control network-based NAT and Firewall functions which will reduce per-application signaling and save battery consumption. @@ -459,66 +389,58 @@ 29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced 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 equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep- alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA (2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages would be more severe if multiple applications are 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 with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]). This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in [RFC6147]. As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security- aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 function locally. Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034], [RFC4035]. Means to 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 host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why 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 support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over connection established through translation devices (e.g., NAT44 and NAT64). When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a dual-stack host must contact first its IPv6 DNS server. Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in [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]. - 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 This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones, or dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below. L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation @@ -561,20 +483,25 @@ recommended to accommodate early deployments. L_REC#2: The cellular CPE must be compliant with the requirements specified in [RFC6204]. There are several deployments, particularly in emerging countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with 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 cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN/ PGW (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces. Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#1) is the target solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but, because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release networks, a mean to share a /64 prefix is also recommended [RFC7278]. @@ -642,37 +569,48 @@ correction defined in [RFC5954]. 6. Security Considerations The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are to be taken into account. Security-related considerations that apply when the cellular device provides LAN features are specified in [RFC6092]. - Address privacy considerations are discussed in A_REC#1 (see - Section 3). Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#4 - (see Section 3). + The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which + preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using + [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 This document does not require any action from IANA. 8. Acknowledgements Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V. Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, and T. Kossut for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list. - Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, and J. Jaeggli for - their detailed reviews and comments. + Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the 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 9.1. Normative References [IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March 2011, . [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 @@ -683,35 +621,24 @@ October 2003. [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 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 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 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 Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", RFC 5954, August 2010. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, October 2010. [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix @@ -742,59 +669,41 @@ [Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks", April 2007, . [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 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. Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC 3948, January 2005. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 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 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January 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 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,