draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-18.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: August 16, 2015 A. Vizdal Expires: August 22, 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
February 12, 2015 D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
February 18, 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-17 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-18
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the
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. This Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This
document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators recommend 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 in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack
wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network) with a special
network) with a special focus on IPv4 service continuity features. focus on IPv4 service continuity features.
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 August 22, 2015.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 9
3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 as perceived in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles as perceived
by some mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 by some mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6
implementation in mobile devices (e.g., Section 3.3 of [OECD]). implementation in mobile devices (e.g., Section 3.3 of [OECD]).
[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 services are to be considered.
This document fills this void. Concretely, this document lists means
to ensure IPv4 service continuity over an IPv6-only connectivity
given the adoption rate of this model by mobile operators. Those
operators require that no service degradation is experienced by
customers serviced with an IPv6-only model compared to the level of
service of customers with legacy IPv4-only devices.
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: (including 3GPP, IETF, and GSMA). 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) or EPC (Evolved
Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network. Packet Core).
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).
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
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].
This document is organized as follows:
o Section 2 lists generic recommendations including functionalities
to provide IPv4 service continuity over an IPv6-only connectivity.
o Section 3 enumerates a set of recommendations for cellular devices
with LAN capabilities (e.g., CPE, dongles with tethering
features).
o Section 4 identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
requirements of critical services such as VoLTE (Voice over LTE).
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. In This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. In
addition, the following terms are used: addition, the following terms are used:
o "3GPP cellular host" (or cellular host for short) denotes a 3GPP o "3GPP cellular host" (or cellular host for short) denotes a 3GPP
device which can be connected to 3GPP mobile networks or IEEE device which can be connected to 3GPP mobile networks or IEEE
802.11 networks. 802.11 networks.
o "3GPP cellular device" (or cellular device for short) refers to a o "3GPP cellular device" (or cellular device for short) refers to a
cellular host which supports the capability to share its WAN (Wide cellular host which supports the capability to share its WAN (Wide
Area Network) connectivity. Area Network) connectivity.
o "Cellular host" and "mobile host" are used interchangeably. o "IPv4 service continuity" denotes the features used to provide
access to IPv4-only services to customers serviced with an
o "Cellular device" and "mobile device" are used interchangeably. IPv6-only connectivity. A typical example of IPv4 service
continuity technique is NAT64 [RFC6146].
PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6 PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6
addresses [RFC6052]. addresses [RFC6052].
1.2. Scope 1.2. Scope
A 3GPP mobile network can be used to connect various user equipments A 3GPP mobile network can be used to connect various user equipments
such as a mobile telephone, a CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) or a such as a mobile telephone, a CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) or a
machine-to-machine (M2M) device. Because of this diversity of machine-to-machine (M2M) device. Because of this diversity of
terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 44
This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6 This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6
recommendations which are valid for all nodes, whatever their recommendations which are valid for all nodes, whatever their
function (e.g., host or CPE) or service (e.g., Session Initiation function (e.g., host or CPE) or service (e.g., Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP, [RFC3261])) capability. The document also contains Protocol (SIP, [RFC3261])) capability. The document also contains
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. Other non-3GPP accesses
[TS.23402] are out of scope of this document.
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 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 Cellular Hosts [RFC7066], which is in turn a superset of IPv6 Node
Requirements [RFC6434]. It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS, Requirements [RFC6434]. It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS,
EPC (Evolved Packet Core) and IEEE 802.11 networks, that require EPC (Evolved Packet Core) and IEEE 802.11 networks, that require
features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over an IPv6-only transport features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over an IPv6-only transport
in addition to the base IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile covers in addition to the base IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile covers
cellular CPEs that are used in various deployments to offer fixed- cellular CPEs that are used in various deployments to offer fixed-
like services. Recommendations inspired from real deployment like services. Recommendations inspired from real deployment
experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 31
Delegation compared to [RFC7066]. The main motivation is that Delegation compared to [RFC7066]. The main motivation is that
cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to
fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with
the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for
an efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to cellular 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- 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 link subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality
in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile
convergence. convergence.
The use of address family dependent APIs (Application Programming
Interfaces) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken
applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. As such, means to
minimize broken applications when the cellular host is attached to an
IPv6-only network should be encouraged. Particularly, (1) name
resolution libraries (e.g., [RFC3596]) must support both IPv4 and
IPv6; (2) applications must be independent of the underlying IP
address family; (3) and applications relying upon Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) must follow [RFC3986] and its updates. Note, some
IETF specifications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) contains broken IPv6 ABNF
and rules to compare URIs with embedded IPv6 addresses; fixes (e.g.,
[RFC5954]) must be used instead.
The recommendations included in each section are listed in a priority
order.
This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not
required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6.
The support of the full set of features may not be required in some Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all
deployment contexts. The authors believe that the support of a enclosed items. Obviously, the support of the full set of features
subset of the features included in this protocol may lead to degraded may not be required in some deployment contexts. However, the
level of service in some deployment contexts. authors believe that not supporting relevant features included in
this profile (e.g., Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877])) may
lead to a degraded level of service.
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 in
dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 addition to what is defined in [RFC6434] and [RFC7066]. Both dual-
service continuity features are listed in this section because these stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service
are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. continuity features are listed in this section because these are
critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model.
C_REC#1: 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 strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host
must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060]. must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported. IPv4, IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends
IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on on the cellular network configuration.
the cellular network configuration.
C_REC#2: 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- [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP-
Context type. In particular, the cellular host must Context type. In particular, the cellular host must
request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host
is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the is IPv6-only and request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the
cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is
not aware of connectivity types requested by devices not aware of connectivity types requested by devices
connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities
as discussed in Section 4): as discussed in Section 3):
* If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by * If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by
the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed,
then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4
address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must
initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to
the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point
Name). Name).
* If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows * If the subscription data or network configuration allows
only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular
host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same
APN for the other IP address family. APN for the other IP address family.
The text above focuses on the specification part which The text above focuses on the specification part which
explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP- explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-
Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to
avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular
devices. devices.
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
C_REC#5: 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
The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee for a
deterministic behavior to be followed by all cellular hosts
when the DNS information is received in various channels.
C_REC#6: 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#2 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 LTE), such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE),
(2) network conditions with regards to the support of (2) network conditions with regards to the support of
specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not
supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription
data, etc. data, etc.
Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN restarts the IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN restarts the
ongoing applications. This is a brokenness situation. ongoing applications. This may be considered as a
brokenness situation.
C_REC#7: 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 PDP-Context
roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s). The purpose of
limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when the of the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s)
out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when out of the home
and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases. network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) and APN(s) can be
configured for home and roaming cases.
A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included
in [RFC7445].
C_REC#8: 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, the PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the
cellular host should implement the method specified in cellular host should implement the method specified in
[RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64.
C_REC#9: 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 in
is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. compliance 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 capability connectivity. The more applications are address family
[RFC6146] in the core network. independent, the less CLAT function is solicited. CLAT
function requires a NAT64 capability [RFC6146] in the
network.
The cellular host should only invoke the CLAT in the
absence of the IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side,
i.e., when the network does not assign an IPv4 address
on the cellular interface. Note, NAT64 assumes an
IPv6-only mode [RFC6146].
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 CLAT and/or NAT64 do not interfere with native IPv6
communications.
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:
W_REC#1: IPv6 must be supported on the WLAN interface. In
particular, WLAN interface must behave properly when only
an IPv6 connectivity is provided.
Some tests revealed that IPv4 configuration is required
to enable IPv6-only connectivity. Indeed, some cellular
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.
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 fulfill
requirements of critical services such as VoLTE.
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 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#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.
According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular
device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds
(that is the default value in [RFC3948] for example) is
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#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#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#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.
4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 3. 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
capabilities [RFC3633] and must support Prefix Exclude capabilities [RFC3633] and must support Prefix Exclude
skipping to change at page 11, line 34 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
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, this profile does not require IPv4 service Note, this profile does not require IPv4 service
continuity techniques listed in [RFC7084] because those continuity techniques listed in [RFC7084] because those
are specific to fixed networks. IPv4 service continuity are specific to fixed networks. IPv4 service continuity
techniques specific to the mobile networks are included techniques specific to the mobile networks are included
in this profile. in this profile.
CAUTION: This recommendation does not apply to any This recommendation does not apply to handsets with
cellular device with LAN capabilities; it is specific to tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CPEs
cellular CPEs in order to ensure the same IPv6 in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional parity for
functional parity for both fixed and cellular CPEs. both fixed and cellular CPEs. Note, modern CPEs are
designed with advanced functions such as link
aggregation that consists in optimizing the network
usage by aggregating the connectivity resources offered
via various interfaces (e.g., DSL, LTE, WLAN, etc.) or
offloading the traffic via a subset of interfaces.
Mutualizing IPv6 features among these interface types is
important for the sake of specification efficiency,
service design simplification and validation effort
optimization.
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].
[RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is [RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is
not in use. not in use.
L_REC#4: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only L_REC#4: In order to allow IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
deployment context, the cellular device should support the deployment context, the cellular device should support the
Customer Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877]. Customer Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877].
Various IP devices are likely to be connected to Various IP devices are likely to be connected to
cellular device, acting as a CPE. Some of these devices cellular device, acting as a CPE. Some of these devices
can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only. can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only.
IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device does not IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device does not
allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts
connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices. connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices.
In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated
from devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4 from devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4
nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT
function in the cellular device. As elaborated in function in the cellular device. As elaborated in
Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4 Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4
applications to continue running over an IPv6-only host. applications to continue running over an IPv6-only
device.
The cellular host should only invoke the CLAT in the
absence of the IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side,
i.e., when the network does not assign an IPv4 address
on the cellular interface.
The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is
defined in [RFC7335]. defined in [RFC7335].
L_REC#5: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the L_REC#5: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the
cellular device should relay that upstream MTU information cellular device should relay that upstream MTU information
to the downstream attached LAN devices in RA. to the downstream attached LAN devices in RA.
Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more
harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where
end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU
size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels. size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels.
[TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358 [TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358
octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP
layer fragmentation within the transport network between layer fragmentation within the transport network between
the cellular device and the GGSN/PGW. the cellular device and the GGSN/PGW.
5. APIs & Applications Recommendations 4. Advanced Recommendations
The use of address family dependent APIs (Application Programming This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
Interfaces) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken requirements of critical services such as VoLTE.
applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. This section
identifies a set of recommendations aiming to minimize broken
applications when the cellular device is attached to an IPv6 network.
APP_REC#1: Name resolution libraries must support both IPv4 and A_REC#1: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001)
IPv6. and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other
ROHC profiles may be supported.
In particular, the cellular host must support Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much
[RFC3596]. 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.
APP_REC#2: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor must be "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP
independent of the underlying IP address family. 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
that the host must be able to apply the compression to
packets that are carried over the voice media dedicated
radio bearer.
This means applications must be IP version agnostic. A_REC#2: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887].
APP_REC#3: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor that The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery
use Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) must follow consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also
[RFC3986] and its updates. For example, SIP applications gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections
must follow the correction defined in [RFC5954]. to the cellular device. Indeed, because several
stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks
(e.g., NAT64 and/or IPv6 Firewalls), PCP can be used by
the cellular host to control network-based NAT64 and
IPv6 Firewall functions which will reduce per-
application signaling and save battery consumption.
6. Security Considerations According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular
device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds
(that is the default value in [RFC3948] for example) is
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.).
PCP allows to avoid embedding ALGs (Application Level
Gateways) at the network side (e.g., NAT64) to manage
protocols which convey IP addresses and/or port numbers
(see Section 2.2 of [RFC6889]). Avoiding soliciting
ALGs allows for more easiness to make evolve a service
independently of the underlying transport network.
A_REC#3: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security
Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only
connectivity 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#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#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.
This preference allows to offload IPv4-only DNS servers.
Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in
[RFC6724] for source address selection.
5. 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.
In the case of cellular CPEs, compliance with L_REC#2 entails In the case of cellular CPEs, compliance with L_REC#2 entails
compliance with [RFC7084], which in turn recommends compliance with compliance with [RFC7084], which in turn recommends compliance with
Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises
Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service
[RFC6092]. Therefore, the security considerations in Section 6 of [RFC6092]. Therefore, the security considerations in Section 6 of
[RFC6092] are relevant. In particular, it bears repeating here that [RFC6092] are relevant. In particular, it bears repeating here that
skipping to change at page 13, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 19
The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which
preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using
[RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when
compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host
is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address. 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 Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the
network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory
bodies in some countries. bodies in some countries.
Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see
Section 3). Section 4).
7. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any action from IANA. This document does not require any action from IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 7. 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, T. Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, T.
Kossut, B. Stark, and A. Petrescu for the discussion in the v6ops Kossut, B. Stark, and A. Petrescu for the discussion in the v6ops
mailing list. mailing list and for the comments.
Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the comments Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the comments
during the IESG review. during the IESG review.
Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, and F. Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, and F.
Baker for their detailed reviews and comments. Baker for their detailed reviews and comments.
9. References 8. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. 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
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
skipping to change at page 15, line 25 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", September 2011, (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23401.htm>. <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23401.htm>.
[TS.24008] [TS.24008]
3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011, network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>. <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), "The Economics of the Transition to Internet (OECD), "The Economics of the Transition to Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", November 2014, <http://www.oec Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", November 2014, <http://www.oec
d.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DST d.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DST
I/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/FINAL&docLanguage=En>. I/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/FINAL&docLanguage=En>.
[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/
skipping to change at page 16, line 50 skipping to change at page 17, line 30
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
6877, April 2013. 6877, April 2013.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. [RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April
2013. 2013.
[RFC6889] Penno, R., Saxena, T., Boucadair, M., and S. Sivakumar,
"Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation", RFC 6889, April
2013.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC
7050, November 2013. 7050, November 2013.
[RFC7051] Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of Solution [RFC7051] Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of Solution
Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051, Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051,
November 2013. November 2013.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic [RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
skipping to change at page 17, line 28 skipping to change at page 18, line 13
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014. Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, June (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, June
2014. 2014.
[RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335, [RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335,
August 2014. August 2014.
[RFC7445] Chen, G., Deng, H., Michaud, D., Korhonen, J., Boucadair,
M., and V. Ales, "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6
Roaming Scenarios", February 2015.
[TS.23402] [TS.23402]
3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
September 2011, September 2011,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>. <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
David Binet David Binet
France Telecom France Telecom
Rennes Rennes
skipping to change at line 836 skipping to change at page 19, line 20
EMail: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk EMail: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk
Ross Chandler Ross Chandler
eircom | meteor eircom | meteor
1HSQ 1HSQ
St. John's Road St. John's Road
Dublin 8 Dublin 8
Ireland Ireland
EMail: ross@eircom.net EMail: ross@eircom.net
Dave Michaud
Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Rd.
Brampton, ON L6T 0C1
Canada
EMail: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
Madrid 28006
Spain
Phone: +34 913 129 041
EMail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
 End of changes. 49 change blocks. 
199 lines changed or deleted 230 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/