draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-20.txt   rfc7849.txt 
V6OPS Working Group D. Binet Independent Submission D. Binet
Internet-Draft M. Boucadair Request for Comments: 7849 M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational France Telecom Category: Informational Orange
Expires: September 3, 2015 A. Vizdal ISSN: 2070-1721 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
D. Michaud D. Michaud
Rogers Communications Rogers Communications
D. Lopez D. Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
March 2, 2015 W. Haeffner
Vodafone
May 2016
An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-20
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 the connection
connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third Generation
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This document
document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators recommend defines a profile that is a superset of the connections to IPv6
in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack cellular networks defined in "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership
wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network) with a special Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts" (RFC 7066).
focus on IPv4 service continuity features.
Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area Both mobile hosts and mobile devices with the capability to share
Network) connectivity are in scope. their 3GPP mobile connectivity are in scope.
IESG Note
The consensus-based IETF description of IPv6 functionality for
cellular hosts is described in RFC 7066.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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.
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 Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 9 3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 11
4. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only perennial IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only viable solution
solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. Several
Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are in the
in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles as perceived pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles as perceived by some
by some mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 mobile operators is the lack of availability of working 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 services are to be considered. deployments while accessing IPv4-only services should be considered.
This document fills this void. Concretely, this document lists means This document fills this void. Concretely, this document lists means
to ensure IPv4 service continuity over an IPv6-only connectivity to ensure IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity given the
given the adoption rate of this model by mobile operators. Those adoption rate of this model by mobile operators. Those operators
operators require that no service degradation is experienced by require that no service degradation is experienced by customers
customers serviced with an IPv6-only model compared to the level of serviced with an IPv6-only model compared to the level of service of
service of customers with legacy IPv4-only devices. 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
(including 3GPP, IETF, and GSMA). The objectives of this effort are: (including 3GPP, IETF, and the Global System for Mobile
Communications Association (GSMA)). The objectives of this effort
are as follows:
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 packet
types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) or EPC (Evolved core architectures such as General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or
Packet Core). Evolved Packet Core (EPC).
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. Inform vendors 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).
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 release details, the reader may refer to
Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. More details can be found at [R3GPP].
Some of the features listed in this profile document require to Some of the features listed in this profile document could require
activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope that dedicated functions be activated at the network side. It is out
of this document to list these network-side functions. of scope 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]. IPv6-only considerations in mobile networks are in [RFC6459]. IPv6-only considerations in mobile networks are
further discussed in [RFC6342]. further discussed in [RFC6342].
This document is organized as follows: This document is organized as follows:
o Section 2 lists generic recommendations including functionalities o Section 2 lists generic recommendations, including functionalities
to provide IPv4 service continuity over an IPv6-only connectivity. to provide IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity.
o Section 3 enumerates a set of recommendations for cellular devices o Section 3 enumerates a set of recommendations for cellular devices
with LAN capabilities (e.g., CE Routers, dongles with tethering with Local Area Network (LAN) capabilities (e.g., Customer Edge
(CE) routers with cellular access link, dongles with tethering
features). features).
o Section 4 identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill o Section 4 identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
requirements of critical services such as VoLTE (Voice over LTE). 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. device that can be connected to 3GPP mobile 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 that supports the capability to share its 3GPP
Area Network) connectivity. mobile connectivity.
o "IPv4 service continuity" denotes the features used to provide o IPv4 service continuity: denotes the features used to provide
access to IPv4-only services to customers serviced with an access to IPv4-only services to customers serviced with an
IPv6-only connectivity. A typical example of IPv4 service IPv6-only connectivity. A typical example of IPv4 service
continuity technique is NAT64 [RFC6146]. continuity technique is Network Address and Protocol Translation
from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers (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 Equipment
such as a mobile telephone or a Customer Edge Routers. Because of (UE) such as a mobile telephone or a CE router. Because of this
this diversity of terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6 diversity of terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6
functionalities valid for any node directly connecting to a 3GPP functionalities valid for any node directly connecting to a 3GPP
mobile network. This document describes these functionalities. mobile network. This document describes these functionalities.
Machine-to-machine (M2M) devices profile is out of scope. The machine-to-machine (M2M) devices profile is out of scope.
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 that are valid for all nodes, whatever their function
function (e.g., host or CE router) or service (e.g., Session (e.g., host or CE router) or service (e.g., Session Initiation
Initiation Protocol (SIP, [RFC3261])) capability. The document also Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]) capability. The document also contains
contains sections covering specific functionalities for devices sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some
providing some LAN functions (e.g., mobile CE router or broadband LAN functions (e.g., mobile CE router or broadband dongles).
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 Evolved Packet System (EPS). For EPS, the term "PDN-Connection"
term is used instead of PDP-Context. Other non-3GPP accesses is used instead of PDP-Context. Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402]
[TS.23402] are out of scope of this document. 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
and EPC (Evolved Packet Core), that require features to ensure IPv4 and EPC, that require features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over
service delivery over an IPv6-only transport in addition to the base an IPv6-only transport in addition to the base IPv6 service.
IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile also covers cellular CE routers Moreover, this profile also covers cellular CE routers that are used
that are used in various deployments to offer fixed-like services. in various mobile broadband deployments. Recommendations inspired
Recommendations inspired from real deployment experiences (e.g., from real deployment experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this
roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this profile sketches profile. Also, this profile sketches recommendations for the sake of
recommendations for the sake of deterministic behaviors of cellular deterministic behaviors of cellular devices when the same
devices when the same configuration information is received over configuration information is received over several channels.
several channels.
For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g., For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g.,
Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066]. Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066].
Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in
3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey IPv6 prefix 3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey an IPv6
towards the 3GPP cellular device. In particular, MTU (Maximum prefix towards the 3GPP cellular device. In particular, Maximum
Transmission Unit) communication via Router Advertisement must be Transmission Unit (MTU) communication via Router Advertisement (RA)
supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU must be supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU
setting. setting.
This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix
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 larger prefixes to cellular hosts so an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes to cellular hosts so
that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link
subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality in subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality in
both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile convergence. both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile convergence.
The use of address family dependent APIs (Application Programming The use of address-family-dependent Application Programming
Interfaces) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken Interfaces (APIs) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to
applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. As such, means to broken applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. As such, means
minimize broken applications when the cellular host is attached to an to minimize broken applications when the cellular host is attached to
IPv6-only network should be encouraged. Particularly, (1) name an IPv6-only network should be encouraged. Particularly, (1) name
resolution libraries (e.g., [RFC3596]) must support both IPv4 and resolution libraries (e.g., [RFC3596]) must support both IPv4 and
IPv6; (2) applications must be independent of the underlying IP IPv6; (2) applications must be independent of the underlying IP
address family; (3) and applications relying upon Uniform Resource address family; and (3) applications relying upon Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) must follow [RFC3986] and its updates. Note, some Identifiers (URIs) must follow [RFC3986] and its updates. Note, some
IETF specifications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) contains broken IPv6 ABNF IETF specifications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) contains broken IPv6
and rules to compare URIs with embedded IPv6 addresses; fixes (e.g., Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) and rules to compare URIs with
[RFC5954]) must be used instead. embedded IPv6 addresses; fixes (e.g., [RFC5954]) must be used
instead.
The recommendations included in each section are listed in a priority The recommendations included in each section are listed in a priority
order. 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.
Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all
enclosed items. Obviously, the support of the full set of features enclosed items. Obviously, the support of the full set of features
may not be required in some deployment contexts. However, the may not be required in some deployment contexts. However, the
authors believe that not supporting relevant features included in authors believe that not supporting relevant features included in
this profile (e.g., Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877])) may this profile (e.g., Customer-Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877]) may
lead to a degraded level of service. 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 in followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6 in
addition to what is defined in [RFC6434] and [RFC7066]. Both dual- addition to what is defined in [RFC6434] and [RFC7066]. Both dual-
stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service
continuity features are listed in this section because these are continuity features are listed in this section because these are
critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. critical for operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. These
recommendations apply also for cellular devices (see Section 3).
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].
IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends IPv4, IPv6, or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance
on the cellular network configuration. depends on 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], and [TS.24008] for requesting a
Context type. PDP-Context type.
In particular, the cellular host must request by default an In particular, the cellular host must request by default an
IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and
request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is dual- request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is dual-
stack or when the cellular host is not aware of stack or when the cellular host is not aware of
connectivity types requested by devices connected to it connectivity types requested by devices connected to it
(e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities as discussed in (e.g., a cellular host with LAN capabilities as discussed
Section 3): 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 of the other
the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point address family in addition to the one already activated
Name). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context for a given Access Point Name (APN). The purpose of
is to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two initiating a second PDP-Context is to achieve dual-stack
PDP-Contexts. connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.
* If the subscription data or network configuration 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 (excerpt from The network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet
[TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008]) which explains the Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management
behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-Context(s). (SM) cause codes. In particular, the following cause codes
can be returned:
C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the PCO (Protocol * cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed" - This cause code
Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type
address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s). IPv4 is allowed for the requested Public Data Network
(PDN) connectivity.
In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the * cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed" - This cause code
cellular host about various services, including DNS is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type
server information. It does not require any specific IPv6 is allowed for the requested PDN connectivity.
protocol to be supported and it is already deployed in
IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information.
C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow * cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed" - This
Templates (TFT) [TS.24008]. cause code is used by the network to indicate that the
requested PDN connectivity is accepted with the
restriction that only single IP version bearers are
allowed.
The text above focuses on the specification (an excerpt
from [TS.23060], [TS.23401], and [TS.24008]) that explains
the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-Context(s).
C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the Protocol Configuration
Options (PCOs) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 address(es)
of the Recursive DNS server(s).
The 3GPP network communicates parameters by means of the
protocol configuration options information element when
activating, modifying, or deactivating a PDP-Context.
PCO is a convenient method to inform the cellular host
about various services, including DNS server
information. It does not require additional protocol to
be supported by the cellular host and it is already
deployed in IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS
information.
C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6-aware Traffic Flow
Templates (TFTs) [TS.24008].
Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to
couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus, a
dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be
provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic. provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic.
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 The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee for a
deterministic behavior to be followed by all cellular hosts deterministic behavior to be followed by all cellular hosts
when the DNS information is received in various channels. 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: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be
PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow
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.
Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN will
interrupt related network connections. This may be
considered as a brokenness situation by some
applications.
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 PDP-Context must be able to be configured with a home PDP-Context
type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s). The purpose of type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s). The purpose of
the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s) requested the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s) requested
by the cellular host when out of the home network. Note by the cellular host when out of the home network. Note
that distinct PDP type(s) and APN(s) can be configured for that distinct PDP type(s) and APN(s) can be configured for
home and roaming cases. home and roaming cases.
A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included
in [RFC7445]. in [RFC7445].
C_REC#8: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only The configuration can be either local to the device or
be managed dynamically using, for example, Open Mobile
Alliance (OMA) management. The support of dynamic means
is encouraged.
C_REC#7: 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 learn PREFIX64(s). method to learn PREFIX64(s).
In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications
relying on address referrals will fail because an relying on address referrals will fail because an
IPv6-only client won't be able to make use of an IPv4 IPv6-only client will not be able to make use of an IPv4
address received in a referral. This feature allows to address received in a referral. This feature allows for
solve the referral problem (because an IPv6-enabled solving the referral problem (because an IPv6-enabled
application can construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses application can construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
[RFC6052]) and, also, to distinguish between [RFC6052]) and, also, for distinguishing between
IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses and native IPv6 addresses. IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses and native IPv6 addresses.
In other words, this feature contributes to offload both In other words, this feature contributes to offload both
CLAT module (C_REC#9) and NAT64 devices. Refer to the CLAT module and NAT64 devices. Refer to Section 3
Section 3 of [RFC7051] for an inventory of the issues of [RFC7051] for an inventory of the issues related to
related to the discovery of PREFIX64(s). the discovery of PREFIX64(s).
In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow In environments based on the Port Control Protocol
[RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream (PCP), cellular hosts should follow [RFC7225] to learn
PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64
cellular host should implement the method specified in device. If PCP is not enabled, the cellular host should
[RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. implement the method specified in [RFC7050] to retrieve
the PREFIX64.
C_REC#9: 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 implement the deployment context, the cellular host should implement the
Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function in CLAT [RFC6877] function in compliance with [RFC6052],
compliance with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. [RFC6145], and [RFC6146].
CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only The CLAT function in the cellular host allows for
application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only IPv4-only application and IPv4 referrals to work on an
connectivity. The more applications are address family IPv6-only connectivity. The more applications are
independent, the less CLAT function is solicited. CLAT address family independent, the less the CLAT function
function requires a NAT64 capability [RFC6146] in the is solicited. The CLAT function requires a NAT64
network. capability [RFC6146] in the network.
The cellular host should only invoke the CLAT in the The cellular host should only invoke CLAT in the absence
absence of the IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side, of IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side, i.e., when
i.e., when the network does not assign an IPv4 address the network does not assign an IPv4 address on the
on the cellular interface. Note, NAT64 assumes an cellular interface. Note, NAT64 assumes an IPv6-only
IPv6-only mode [RFC6146]. 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].
CLAT and/or NAT64 do not interfere with native IPv6 CLAT and/or NAT64 do not interfere with native IPv6
communications. communications.
CLAT may not be required in some contexts, e.g., if
other solutions such as Bump-in-the-Host (BIH) [RFC6535]
are supported.
The cellular device can act as a CE router connecting
various IP hosts on a LAN segment; this is also the case
with using WLAN (Wireless LAN) tethering or a WLAN
hotspot from the cellular device. Some of these IP
hosts can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or
IPv4-only. IPv6-only connectivity on the cellular
device does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be
established for hosts connected on the LAN segment of
the cellular device. IPv4 session establishment
initiated from hosts located on the LAN segment side and
destined for IPv4 nodes must be maintained. A solution
is to integrate the CLAT function to the LAN segment in
the cellular device.
C_REC#9: The cellular host may 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#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, (2) network
conditions with regard to the support of specific PDP
types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported), (3)
IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription data, etc.
Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN will
interrupt related network connections. This may be
considered as a brokenness situation by some
applications.
The configuration can be either local to the device or
be managed dynamically using, for example, OMA
management. The support of dynamic means is encouraged.
3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities
This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CE router, This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CE routers,
smartphones, or dongles with tethering features) which provide IP smartphones, or dongles with tethering features) that provide IP
connectivity to other devices connected to them. In such case, all connectivity to other devices connected to them. In this case, all
connected devices are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In connected devices are sharing the same 2G, 3G, or LTE connection. In
addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these
cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below. cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below.
L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation L_REC#1: For deployments that require that the same /64 prefix be
capabilities [RFC3633] and must support Prefix Exclude shared, the cellular device should support [RFC7278] to
enable sharing a /64 prefix between the LAN and the WAN
interfaces. The WAN interface is the one towards the
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) / Packet Data Network
Gateway (PGW).
Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#2) is the target
solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but,
because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release
networks, a means to share a /64 prefix is also
recommended [RFC7278].
[RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is
not in use.
L_REC#2: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation
capabilities [RFC3633] and must support the Prefix Exclude
Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in
[RFC6603]. Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting [RFC6603]. Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting
Router. Router.
Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an
alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based services alternative to fixed broadband networks for home IP-
delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and based services delivery; especially with the advent of
3GPP data dongles. There is a need for an efficient smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for
mechanism to assign larger prefixes (other than /64s) to an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes (other
cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own than /64s) to cellular hosts so that each LAN segment
/64 prefix and multi-link subnet issues to be avoided. can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link subnet issues
to be avoided.
In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using
DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two
prefixes: prefixes:
(1) one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC mechanism (1) one for the 3GPP link allocated using the Stateless
and Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) mechanism and
(2) another one delegated for LANs acquired during
Prefix Delegation operation. (2) another one delegated for LANs acquired during the
Prefix Delegation operation.
Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both
the WAN (Wide Area Network) and the delegated prefix to the WAN and the delegated prefix to be aggregatable so
be aggregatable, so the subscriber can be identified the subscriber can be identified using a single prefix.
using a single prefix.
Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router
(GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure [RFC3633] compliancy (GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure compliance with [RFC3633]
(e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the (e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the
WAN prefix out of the 1st half and the prefix to be WAN prefix out of the first half and the prefix to be
delegated to the terminal from the 2nd half). delegated to the terminal from the second half).
Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be
available in some attached networks, L_REC#3 is strongly available in some attached networks, L_REC#1 is strongly
recommended to accommodate early deployments. recommended to accommodate early deployments.
L_REC#2: The cellular CE router must be compliant with the L_REC#3: The cellular CE router must be compliant with the
requirements specified in [RFC7084]. requirements specified in [RFC7084].
There are several deployments, particularly in emerging There are several deployments, particularly in emerging
countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide countries, that rely on mobile networks to provide
broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with
mobile CE routers). mobile CE routers).
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 Section 4.4 of [RFC7084]
are specific to fixed networks. IPv4 service continuity because those are specific to fixed networks. IPv4
techniques specific to the mobile networks are included service continuity techniques specific to the mobile
in this profile. networks are included in this profile.
This recommendation does not apply to handsets with This recommendation does not apply to handsets with
tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CE tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CE
routers in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional routers in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional
parity for both fixed and cellular CE routers. Note, parity for both fixed and cellular CE routers. Note,
modern CE routers are designed with advanced functions modern CE routers are designed with advanced functions
such as link aggregation that consists in optimizing the such as link aggregation that consists in optimizing the
network usage by aggregating the connectivity resources network usage by aggregating the connectivity resources
offered via various interfaces (e.g., DSL, LTE, WLAN, offered via various interfaces (e.g., Digital Subscriber
etc.) or offloading the traffic via a subset of Line (DSL), LTE, WLAN, etc.) or offloading the traffic
interfaces. Mutualizing IPv6 features among these via a subset of interfaces. Ensuring IPv6 feature
interface types is important for the sake of parity among these interface types is important for the
specification efficiency, service design simplification sake of specification efficiency, service design
and validation effort optimization. simplification, and validation effort optimization.
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].
[RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is
not in use.
L_REC#4: In order to allow IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
deployment context, the cellular device should support the
Customer Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877].
Various IP devices are likely to be connected to
cellular device, acting as a CE router. Some of these
devices can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or
IPv4-only. IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device
does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for
hosts connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices.
In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated
from devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4
nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT
function in the cellular device. As elaborated in
Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4
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
defined in [RFC7335].
L_REC#5: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the L_REC#4: If an RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the
cellular device should relay that upstream MTU information cellular device should send RAs to the downstream attached
to the downstream attached LAN devices in RA. LAN devices with the same MTU as seen on the mobile
interface.
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 tunnels that use the GPRS
Tunneling Protocol (GTP).
[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. More details
about link MTU considerations can be found in Annex C of
[TS.23060].
4. Advanced Recommendations 4. Advanced Recommendations
This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. These
recommendations apply for mobile hosts, including mobile devices.
A_REC#1: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001) A_REC#1: The cellular host must support the RObust Header
and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other Compression (ROHC) RTP Profile (0x0001) and the ROHC UDP
ROHC profiles may be supported. Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 [RFC5795]. Other 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 The "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP
packets and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress packets and the "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to
RTCP packets are required for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) by compress Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)
IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates packets are required for VoLTE by Section 4.1 of
that the host must be able to apply the compression to IR.92.7.0 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates that the host
packets that are carried over the voice media dedicated must be able to apply the compression to packets that
radio bearer. are carried over the voice-media-dedicated radio bearer.
A_REC#2: 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 keep-alive messages. PCP
gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections also gives the possibility of enabling incoming
to the cellular device. Indeed, because several connections to the cellular device. Indeed, because
stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks several stateful devices may be deployed in wireless
(e.g., NAT64 and/or IPv6 Firewalls), PCP can be used by networks (e.g., NAT64 and/or IPv6 Firewalls), PCP can be
the cellular host to control network-based NAT64 and used by the cellular host to control network-based NAT64
IPv6 Firewall functions which will reduce per- and IPv6 Firewall functions that will reduce per-
application signaling and save battery consumption. application signaling and save battery consumption.
According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular
device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds
(that is the default value in [RFC3948] for example) is (which is the default value in [RFC3948], for example)
29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to is 29 mA (2G) / 34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced
16 mA (2G)/24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to to 16 mA (2G) / 24 mA (3G) when the interval is
40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G)/16 mA (3G) if the interval is increased to 40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G) / 16 mA (3G) if
equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if the interval is equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)
the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep- / 14 mA (3G) if the interval is equal to 180 seconds.
alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA When no keep-alive is issued, the consumption would be
(2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages 5.2 mA (2G) / 6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive
would be more severe if multiple applications are messages would be more severe if multiple applications
issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.). are issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.).
PCP allows to avoid embedding ALGs (Application Level Deploying PCP allows cellular hosts to manage protocols
Gateways) at the network side (e.g., NAT64) to manage that convey IP addresses and/or port numbers (see
protocols which convey IP addresses and/or port numbers Section 2.2 of [RFC6889]) without requiring Application
(see Section 2.2 of [RFC6889]). Avoiding soliciting Level Gateways (ALGs) to be enabled at the network side
ALGs allows for more easiness to make evolve a service (e.g., NAT64). Avoiding soliciting ALGs makes it easier
independently of the underlying transport network. to develop a service without any adherence with the
underlying transport network.
A_REC#3: 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
connectivity with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular connectivity with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular
host should embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]). host should 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#8. cellular device as discussed in C_REC#7.
[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#4: 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 a native IPv6 connection over a
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 first contact its IPv6 DNS server.
This preference allows to offload IPv4-only DNS servers. This preference allows it to offload IPv4-only DNS
servers.
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.
5. Security Considerations 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 CE routers, compliance with L_REC#2 entails In the case of cellular CE routers, compliance with L_REC#3 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
the true impact of stateful filtering may be a reduction in security, the true impact of stateful filtering may be a reduction in security
and that IETF make no statement, expressed or implied, as to whether and that the IETF makes no statement, expressed or implied, as to
using the capabilities described in any of these documents ultimately whether using the capabilities described in any of these documents
improves security for any individual users or for the Internet ultimately improves security for any individual users or for the
community as a whole. Internet community as a whole.
The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses that
preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using preserve privacy. The activation of the privacy extension (e.g.,
[RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when using [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time
compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host when compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a
is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address. host is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6
Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the address. Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be
network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory enabled in the network side. Note, privacy extensions are required
bodies in some countries. by regulatory 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 4). Section 4).
6. IANA Considerations 6. References
This document does not require any action from IANA.
7. 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, T.
Kossut, B. Stark, and A. Petrescu for the discussion in the v6ops
mailing list and for the 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.
8. References
8.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March [IR92] GSMA, "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", Official Document
2011, <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/ IR.92 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS, V7.0, March 2013,
ir-92-v4-0-ims-profile-for-voice-and-sms>. <http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/
IR.92-v7.0.pdf>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[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,
October 2003. DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[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,
3986, January 2005. RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[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,
2010. DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
[RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Ed., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Tate, Ed.,
Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in
RFC 5954, August 2010. RFC 3261", RFC 5954, DOI 10.17487/RFC5954, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5954>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O.
"Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012. Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Arkko, J., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, [RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
"IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, November 2013. (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[TS.23060] [TS.23060]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
description; Stage 2", September 2011, description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 23.060 13.6.0, March 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23060.htm>. <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23060.htm>.
[TS.23401] [TS.23401]
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", 3GPP TS 23.401 13.6.1, March 2016,
<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", 3GPP TS 24.008 13.5.0, March
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>. 2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
8.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation 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)", DOI 10.1787/5jxt46d07bhc-en,
d.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DST November 2014, <http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publ
I/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/FINAL&docLanguage=En>. icdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/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/ Proceedings of IEEE 65: Vehicular Technology
Conference, VTC2007-Spring, pp 964-968,
DOI 10.1109/VETECS.2007.207, April 2007,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4212635>. articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4212635>.
[R3GPP] 3GPP, "The Mobile Broadband Standard: Releases", 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/67-releases>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[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",
3948, January 2005. RFC 3948, DOI 10.17487/RFC3948, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3948>.
[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",
4033, March 2005. RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
2011. DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[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,
April 2011. DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6342] Koodli, R., "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 [RFC6342] Koodli, R., "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6
Deployment", RFC 6342, August 2011. Deployment", RFC 6342, DOI 10.17487/RFC6342, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6342>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node [RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011. Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, January 2012. RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6535, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[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",
6877, April 2013. RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC6889] Penno, R., Saxena, T., Boucadair, M., and S. Sivakumar, [RFC6889] Penno, R., Saxena, T., Boucadair, M., and S. Sivakumar,
"Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation", RFC 6889, April "Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation", RFC 6889,
2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6889, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6889>.
[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",
7050, November 2013. RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7051] Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of Solution [RFC7051] Korhonen, J., Ed. and T. Savolainen, Ed., "Analysis of
Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051, Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix",
November 2013. RFC 7051, DOI 10.17487/RFC7051, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7051>.
[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,
November 2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, April 2014. Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the [RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014. Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[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,
2014. DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335, [RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335,
August 2014. DOI 10.17487/RFC7335, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7335>.
[RFC7445] Chen, G., Deng, H., Michaud, D., Korhonen, J., Boucadair, [RFC7445] Chen, G., Deng, H., Michaud, D., Korhonen, J., and M.
M., and V. Ales, "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Boucadair, "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming
Roaming Scenarios", February 2015. Scenarios", RFC 7445, DOI 10.17487/RFC7445, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7445>.
[TS.23402] [TS.23402]
3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
September 2011, 3GPP TS 23.401 13.5.0, March 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>. <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23402.htm>.
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, T. Kossut, B. Stark,
and A. Petrescu for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list and for
the 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, F. Baker,
L.M. Contreras Murillo, and M. Abrahamsson for their detailed reviews
and comments.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
David Binet David Binet
France Telecom Orange
Rennes Rennes
France France
EMail: david.binet@orange.com Email: david.binet@orange.com
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom Orange
Rennes 35000 Rennes 35000
France France
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Ales Vizdal Ales Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
Tomickova 2144/1
Prague, 148 00
Czech Republic
EMail: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz Email: Ales.Vizdal@T-Mobile.cz
Gang Chen Gang Chen
China Mobile China Mobile
29, Jinrong Avenue
Xicheng District, Beijing 100033
China
EMail: phdgang@gmail.com Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
Nick Heatley Nick Heatley
EE EE
The Point, 37 North Wharf Road, The Point, 37 North Wharf Road,
London W2 1AG London W2 1AG
U.K United Kingdom
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 Dave Michaud
Rogers Communications Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Rd. 8200 Dixie Rd.
Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Brampton, ON L6T 0C1
Canada Canada
EMail: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com Email: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Diego R. Lopez Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82 Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82
Madrid 28006 Madrid 28006
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 913 129 041 Phone: +34 913 129 041
EMail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Walter Haeffner
Vodafone D2 GmbH
Ferdinand-Braun-Platz 1
Duesseldorf 40549
Germany
Email: walter.haeffner@vodafone.com
 End of changes. 151 change blocks. 
424 lines changed or deleted 517 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/