< draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00.txt		draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01.txt >
	Network Working Group M. Boucadair		Network Working Group M. Boucadair
	Internet-Draft Orange		Internet-Draft Orange
	Updates: 7296 (if approved) October 21, 2018		Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 05, 2018
	Intended status: Standards Track		Intended status: Standards Track
	Expires: April 24, 2019		Expires: May 9, 2019
	IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence		IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
	draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00		draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage		This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better
	IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence.		manage IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence.
	This document updates RFC7296.		This document updates RFC7296.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 12 ¶
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network		As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network
	configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the		configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the
	cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN		cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN
	for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership		for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership
	Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet		Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet
	Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause		Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause
	codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned:		codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned:
	skipping to change at page 3, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 8 ¶
	Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is		Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is
	to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.		to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.
	According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the		According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the
	network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296],		network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296],
	there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User		there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User
	Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether		Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether
	that UE should retry with another address family.		that UE should retry with another address family.
	This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification		This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification
	codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors.		status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors.
	These notification codes are not specific to 3GPP architectures, but		These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP
	can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are		architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts.
	provided as an illustration example.		Cellular networks are provided as an illustration example.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In		This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In
	particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and		particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and
	"responder" terms used in that document.		"responder" terms used in that document.
	3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE?		3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE?
	Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that		Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type
	is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That		that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure.
	code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given		That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine
	address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using		why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try
	another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code		using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-
	when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder.		all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an
			IKEv2 responder.
	INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the		INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the
	IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior.		IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior.
	4. An Update to RFC7296		4. An Update to RFC7296
	The following notification codes are defined:		The following notification status types are defined:
	o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address		o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This status type indicates that the requested
	family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with		address family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent
	the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address		exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that
	family.		address family.
	o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is		o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv6 is
	supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT		supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
	include any IPv4-related object.		include any IPv4-related object.
	Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6		Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6
	addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6		addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6
	address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification		address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification
	code. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but gets		status type. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but
	the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the		gets the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the
	IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in		responder, the IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6
	subsequent requests.		address(es) only in subsequent requests.
	o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is		o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv4 is
	supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT		supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
	include any IPv6-related object.		include any IPv6-related object.
	Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6		Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6
	addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es)		addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es)
	and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator		and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type. If the
	requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED		initiator requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the
	notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator		IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the responder,
	should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests.		the IPv4-capable initiator should request IPv4 address(es) only in
			subsequent requests.
	o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only a single		o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only a single
	address family can be assigned per request, not both. This code		address family can be assigned per request, not both. This status
	is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6		type is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6
	addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address		addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address
	family can be assigned per request by the responder.		family can be assigned per request by the responder.
	The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local		The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local
	to the responder.		to the responder.
	If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address		If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address
	families, it replies with the preferred address family and		families, it replies with the preferred address family and
	includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification code. Upon receipt of		includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification status type. Upon
	this code, the initiator MAY re-issue another configuration		receipt of this status type, the initiator MAY re-issue another
	request to ask for an additional address family.		configuration request to ask for an additional address family.
	For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by		For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by
	the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/initiator MUST		the aforementioned notification status types, the repsonder/initiator
	follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849].		MUST follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849].
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This document adheres to the security considerations defined in		This document adheres to the security considerations defined in
	[RFC7849] and [RFC7296].		[RFC7296].
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types		This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types
	- Error Types" registry available at:		- Status Types" registry available at:
	https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/		https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/
	ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes:		ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following status types:
	Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference		Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference
	TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document]		TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document]
	TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]		TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
	TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]		TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
	TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document]		TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.		Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.
	Thanks to Paul Wouters and Yaov Nir for the comments.		Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, and Daniel Migault
			for the comments.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	48 lines changed or deleted		50 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/