GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7849

Independent Submission D. Binet Request for Comments: 7849 M. Boucadair Category: Informational Orange ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Vizdal

                                                   Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                               G. Chen
                                                          China Mobile
                                                            N. Heatley
                                                                    EE
                                                           R. Chandler
                                                       eircom | meteor
                                                            D. Michaud
                                                 Rogers Communications
                                                              D. Lopez
                                                        Telefonica I+D
                                                           W. Haeffner
                                                              Vodafone
                                                              May 2016
              An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices

Abstract

 This document defines a profile that is a superset of the connection
 to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third Generation
 Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document.  This document
 defines a profile that is a superset of the connections to IPv6
 cellular networks defined in "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership
 Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts" (RFC 7066).
 Both mobile hosts and mobile devices with the capability to share
 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.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
 RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
 its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
 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.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   1.2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 2.  Connectivity Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 3.  Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities  .  11
 4.  Advanced Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
 6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

1. Introduction

 IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only viable solution
 to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks.  Several
 mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are in the
 pre-deployment phase.  One of the major hurdles as perceived by some
 mobile operators is the lack of availability of working IPv6
 implementation in mobile devices (e.g., Section 3.3 of [OECD]).
 [RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts
 to connect to 3GPP mobile networks.  In the light of recent IPv6
 production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only
 deployments while accessing IPv4-only services should be considered.
 This document fills this void.  Concretely, this document lists means
 to ensure IPv4 service 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
 specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations
 (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
     for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack
     mobile deployment contexts.  These features cover various packet
     core architectures such as General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or
     Evolved Packet Core (EPC).
 2.  Help operators with the detailed device requirement list
     preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers).  This is
     also a contribution to harmonize operators' requirements towards
     device vendors.
 3.  Inform vendors of a set of features to allow for IPv6
     connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only
     transport).
 The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details.  For more
 information on the 3GPP release details, the reader may refer to
 Section 6.2 of [RFC6459].  More details can be found at [R3GPP].

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 Some of the features listed in this profile document could require
 that dedicated functions be activated at the network side.  It is out
 of scope of this document to list these network-side functions.
 A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
 in [RFC6459].  IPv6-only considerations in mobile networks are
 further discussed in [RFC6342].
 This document is organized as follows:
 o  Section 2 lists generic recommendations, including functionalities
    to provide IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity.
 o  Section 3 enumerates a set of recommendations for cellular devices
    with Local Area Network (LAN) capabilities (e.g., Customer Edge
    (CE) routers with cellular access link, 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

 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459].  In
 addition, the following terms are used:
 o  3GPP cellular host (or "cellular host" for short): denotes a 3GPP
    device that can be connected to 3GPP mobile networks.
 o  3GPP cellular device (or "cellular device" for short): refers to a
    cellular host that supports the capability to share its 3GPP
    mobile connectivity.
 o  IPv4 service continuity: denotes the features used to provide
    access to IPv4-only services to customers serviced with an
    IPv6-only connectivity.  A typical example of IPv4 service
    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
 addresses [RFC6052].

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

1.2. Scope

 A 3GPP mobile network can be used to connect various User Equipment
 (UE) such as a mobile telephone or a CE router.  Because of this
 diversity of terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6
 functionalities valid for any node directly connecting to a 3GPP
 mobile network.  This document describes these functionalities.
 The machine-to-machine (M2M) devices profile is out of scope.
 This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6
 recommendations that are valid for all nodes, whatever their function
 (e.g., host or CE router) or service (e.g., Session Initiation
 Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]) capability.  The document also contains
 sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some
 LAN functions (e.g., mobile CE router or broadband dongles).
 The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and
 3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS).  For EPS, the term "PDN-Connection"
 is used instead of PDP-Context.  Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402]
 are out of scope of this document.
 This profile is a superset of that of the IPv6 profile for 3GPP
 Cellular Hosts [RFC7066], which is in turn a superset of IPv6 Node
 Requirements [RFC6434].  It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS
 and EPC, that require features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over
 an IPv6-only transport in addition to the base IPv6 service.
 Moreover, this profile also covers cellular CE routers that are used
 in various mobile broadband deployments.  Recommendations inspired
 from real deployment experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this
 profile.  Also, this profile sketches recommendations for the sake of
 deterministic behaviors of cellular devices when the same
 configuration information is received over several channels.
 For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g.,
 Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066].
 Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in
 3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey an IPv6
 prefix towards the 3GPP cellular device.  In particular, Maximum
 Transmission Unit (MTU) communication via Router Advertisement (RA)
 must be supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU
 setting.
 This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix
 Delegation compared to [RFC7066].  The main motivation is that
 cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to
 fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with
 the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles.  There is a need for

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes to cellular hosts so
 that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi-link
 subnet issues to be avoided.  The support of this functionality in
 both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile convergence.
 The use of address-family-dependent Application Programming
 Interfaces (APIs) 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; and (3) applications relying upon Uniform Resource
 Identifiers (URIs) must follow [RFC3986] and its updates.  Note, some
 IETF specifications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) contains broken IPv6
 Augmented Backus-Naur Form (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
 required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6.
 Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all
 enclosed items.  Obviously, the support of the full set of features
 may not be required in some deployment contexts.  However, the
 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

 This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be
 followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6 in
 addition to what is defined in [RFC6434] and [RFC7066].  Both dual-
 stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered.  IPv4 service
 continuity features are listed in this section because these are
 critical for operators with an IPv6-only deployment model.  These
 recommendations apply also for cellular devices (see Section 3).
 C_REC#1:  In order to allow each operator to select their own
           strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host
           must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
           IPv4, IPv6, or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance
           depends on the cellular network configuration.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 C_REC#2:  The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in
           [TS.23060], [TS.23401], and [TS.24008] for requesting a
           PDP-Context type.
           In particular, the cellular host must request by default an
           IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and
           request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is dual-
           stack or when the cellular host is not aware of
           connectivity types requested by devices connected to it
           (e.g., a cellular host with LAN capabilities as discussed
           in Section 3):
  • If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by

the network but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed,

              then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4
              address or an IPv6 prefix by the network.  It must
              initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other
              address family in addition to the one already activated
              for a given Access Point Name (APN).  The purpose of
              initiating a second PDP-Context is to achieve dual-stack
              connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.
  • If the subscription data or network configuration allows

only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular

              host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same
              APN for the other IP address family.
           The network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet
           Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management
           (SM) cause codes.  In particular, the following cause codes
           can be returned:
  • cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed" - This cause code

is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type

              IPv4 is allowed for the requested Public Data Network
              (PDN) connectivity.
  • cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed" - This cause code

is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type

              IPv6 is allowed for the requested PDN connectivity.
  • cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed" - This

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.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

           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
              couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context.  Thus, a
              dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be
              provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic.
 C_REC#5:  If the cellular host receives the DNS information in
           several channels for the same interface, the following
           preference order must be followed:
              1.  PCO
              2.  RA
              3.  DHCPv6
           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:  Because of potential operational deficiencies to be
           experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host
           must be able to be configured with a home PDP-Context
           type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s).  The purpose of
           the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type(s) requested
           by the cellular host when out of the home network.  Note
           that distinct PDP type(s) and APN(s) can be configured for
           home and roaming cases.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

              A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included
              in [RFC7445].
              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
           method to learn PREFIX64(s).
              In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications
              relying on address referrals will fail because an
              IPv6-only client will not be able to make use of an IPv4
              address received in a referral.  This feature allows for
              solving the referral problem (because an IPv6-enabled
              application can construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
              [RFC6052]) and, also, for distinguishing between
              IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses and native IPv6 addresses.
              In other words, this feature contributes to offload both
              the CLAT module and NAT64 devices.  Refer to Section 3
              of [RFC7051] for an inventory of the issues related to
              the discovery of PREFIX64(s).
              In environments based on the Port Control Protocol
              (PCP), cellular hosts should follow [RFC7225] to learn
              the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64
              device.  If PCP is not enabled, the cellular host should
              implement the method specified in [RFC7050] to retrieve
              the PREFIX64.
 C_REC#8:  In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
           deployment context, the cellular host should implement the
           CLAT [RFC6877] function in compliance with [RFC6052],
           [RFC6145], and [RFC6146].
              The CLAT function in the cellular host allows for
              IPv4-only application and IPv4 referrals to work on an
              IPv6-only connectivity.  The more applications are
              address family independent, the less the CLAT function
              is solicited.  The CLAT function requires a NAT64
              capability [RFC6146] in the network.
              The cellular host should only invoke CLAT in the absence
              of IPv4 connectivity on the cellular side, i.e., when
              the network does not assign an IPv4 address on the

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

              cellular interface.  Note, NAT64 assumes an IPv6-only
              mode [RFC6146].
              The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is
              defined in [RFC7335].
              CLAT and/or NAT64 do not interfere with native IPv6
              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.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

3. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities

 This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CE routers,
 smartphones, or dongles with tethering features) that provide IP
 connectivity to other devices connected to them.  In this case, all
 connected devices are sharing the same 2G, 3G, or LTE connection.  In
 addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these
 cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below.
 L_REC#1:  For deployments that require that the same /64 prefix be
           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
           [RFC6603].  Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting
           Router.
              Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an
              alternative to fixed broadband networks for home IP-
              based services delivery; especially with the advent of
              smartphones and 3GPP data dongles.  There is a need for
              an efficient mechanism to assign larger prefixes (other
              than /64s) to cellular hosts so that each LAN segment
              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
              DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two
              prefixes:
              (1)  one for the 3GPP link allocated using the Stateless
                   Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) mechanism and

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

              (2)  another one delegated for LANs acquired during the
                   Prefix Delegation operation.
              Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both
              the WAN and the delegated prefix to be aggregatable so
              the subscriber can be identified using a single prefix.
              Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router
              (GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure compliance with [RFC3633]
              (e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the
              WAN prefix out of the first half and the prefix to be
              delegated to the terminal from the second half).
              Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be
              available in some attached networks, L_REC#1 is strongly
              recommended to accommodate early deployments.
 L_REC#3:  The cellular CE router must be compliant with the
           requirements specified in [RFC7084].
              There are several deployments, particularly in emerging
              countries, that rely on mobile networks to provide
              broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with
              mobile CE routers).
              Note, this profile does not require IPv4 service
              continuity techniques listed in Section 4.4 of [RFC7084]
              because those are specific to fixed networks.  IPv4
              service continuity techniques specific to the mobile
              networks are included in this profile.
              This recommendation does not apply to handsets with
              tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CE
              routers in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional
              parity for both fixed and cellular CE routers.  Note,
              modern CE routers 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., Digital Subscriber
              Line (DSL), LTE, WLAN, etc.) or offloading the traffic
              via a subset of interfaces.  Ensuring IPv6 feature
              parity among these interface types is important for the
              sake of specification efficiency, service design
              simplification, and validation effort optimization.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 L_REC#4:  If an RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the
           cellular device should send RAs to the downstream attached
           LAN devices with the same MTU as seen on the mobile
           interface.
              Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more
              harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where
              end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU
              size of the mobile network's tunnels that use the GPRS
              Tunneling Protocol (GTP).
              [TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358
              octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP
              layer fragmentation within the transport network between
              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

 This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill
 requirements of critical services such as VoLTE.  These
 recommendations apply for mobile hosts, including mobile devices.
 A_REC#1:  The cellular host must support the RObust Header
           Compression (ROHC) RTP Profile (0x0001) and the 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.
              The "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP
              packets and the "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to
              compress Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)
              packets are required for VoLTE by Section 4.1 of
              IR.92.7.0 [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.
 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 keep-alive messages.  PCP
              also gives the possibility of enabling incoming
              connections to the cellular device.  Indeed, because

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

              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 that 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
              (which 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.).
              Deploying PCP allows cellular hosts to manage protocols
              that convey IP addresses and/or port numbers (see
              Section 2.2 of [RFC6889]) without requiring Application
              Level Gateways (ALGs) to be enabled at the network side
              (e.g., NAT64).  Avoiding soliciting ALGs makes it easier
              to develop a service without any adherence with 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#7.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

              [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 a native IPv6 connection over a
           connection established through translation devices (e.g.,
           NAT44 and NAT64).
              When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a
              dual-stack host must first contact its IPv6 DNS server.
              This preference allows it 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
 to be taken into account.
 In the case of cellular CE routers, compliance with L_REC#3 entails
 compliance with [RFC7084], which in turn recommends compliance with
 Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises
 Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service
 [RFC6092].  Therefore, the security considerations in Section 6 of
 [RFC6092] are relevant.  In particular, it bears repeating here that
 the true impact of stateful filtering may be a reduction in security
 and that the IETF makes no statement, expressed or implied, as to
 whether using the capabilities described in any of these documents
 ultimately improves security for any individual users or for the
 Internet community as a whole.
 The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses that
 preserve privacy.  The activation of the privacy extension (e.g.,
 using [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time
 when compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier.  Tracking a
 host is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6
 address.  Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be
 enabled in the network side.  Note, privacy extensions are required
 by regulatory bodies in some countries.
 Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see
 Section 4).

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [IR92]     GSMA, "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", Official Document
            IR.92 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS, V7.0, March 2013,
            <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
            (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,
            "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
 [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
            Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
 [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
            Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
            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
            Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5795, March 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5795>.
 [RFC5954]  Gurbani, V., Ed., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Tate, Ed.,
            "Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in
            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.
            Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
 [RFC6603]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O.
            Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
            Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 [RFC7066]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
            Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
            (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
            November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
 [TS.23060]
            3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
            description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 23.060 13.6.0, March 2016,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23060.htm>.
 [TS.23401]
            3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
            for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
            (E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 13.6.1, March 2016,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23401.htm>.
 [TS.24008]
            3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
            network protocols; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.008 13.5.0, March
            2016, <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.

6.2. Informative References

 [OECD]     Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
            (OECD), "The Economics of the Transition to Internet
            Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", DOI 10.1787/5jxt46d07bhc-en,
            November 2014, <http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publ
            icdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/ICCP/CISP%282014%293/
            FINAL&docLanguage=En>.
 [Power]    Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy
            Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks",
            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>.
 [R3GPP]    3GPP, "The Mobile Broadband Standard: Releases", 2016,
            <http://www.3gpp.org/specifications/67-releases>.
 [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
            A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
            Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 [RFC3948]  Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
            Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
            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.
            Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
            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.
            Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
            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.
            Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
            Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
 [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
            Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
            Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
 [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
            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
            NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
            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
            Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
            Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
 [RFC6342]  Koodli, R., "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6
            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
            Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
            2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
            T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
            Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
            RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
 [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
            (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:
            Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
            RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
 [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
            P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
 [RFC6889]  Penno, R., Saxena, T., Boucadair, M., and S. Sivakumar,
            "Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation", RFC 6889,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6889, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6889>.
 [RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
            the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
            RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
 [RFC7051]  Korhonen, J., Ed. and T. Savolainen, Ed., "Analysis of
            Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix",
            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
            Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
            Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
            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
            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
            /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
            (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
 [RFC7335]  Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7335, August 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7335>.
 [RFC7445]  Chen, G., Deng, H., Michaud, D., Korhonen, J., and M.
            Boucadair, "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming
            Scenarios", RFC 7445, DOI 10.17487/RFC7445, March 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7445>.
 [TS.23402]
            3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
            3GPP TS 23.401 13.5.0, March 2016,
            <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.

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

Authors' Addresses

 David Binet
 Orange
 Rennes
 France
 Email: david.binet@orange.com
 Mohamed Boucadair
 Orange
 Rennes  35000
 France
 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
 Ales Vizdal
 Deutsche Telekom AG
 Tomickova 2144/1
 Prague, 148 00
 Czech Republic
 Email: Ales.Vizdal@T-Mobile.cz
 Gang Chen
 China Mobile
 29, Jinrong Avenue
 Xicheng District, Beijing  100033
 China
 Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
 Nick Heatley
 EE
 The Point, 37 North Wharf Road,
 London  W2 1AG
 United Kingdom
 Email: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 7849 IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May 2016

 Ross Chandler
 eircom | meteor
 1HSQ
 St. John's Road
 Dublin 8
 Ireland
 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
 Walter Haeffner
 Vodafone D2 GmbH
 Ferdinand-Braun-Platz 1
 Duesseldorf  40549
 Germany
 Email: walter.haeffner@vodafone.com

Binet, et al. Informational [Page 22]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7849.txt · Last modified: 2016/05/23 17:54 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki