< draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01.txt		draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-02.txt >
	Network Working Group M. Boucadair		Network Working Group M. Boucadair
	Internet-Draft Orange		Internet-Draft Orange
	Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 05, 2018		Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 08, 2018
	Intended status: Standards Track		Intended status: Standards Track
	Expires: May 9, 2019		Expires: May 12, 2019
	IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence		IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
	draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01		draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better		This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better
	manage 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
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 34 ¶
	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 May 9, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 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 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	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. IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED Status Types . . . . . 4
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶
	version bearers are allowed.		version bearers are allowed.
	If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network		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		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.		be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network.
	It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address		It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address
	family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access		family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access
	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		When the UE attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of
	network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296],		IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], there are no equivalent notification
	there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User		codes to inform the User Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is
	Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether		not assigned or whether that UE should retry with another address
	that UE should retry with another address family.		family.
	This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification		This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification
	status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors.		status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors (Section 4).
	These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP		These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP
	architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts.		architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts.
	Cellular networks are 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?
			The following address assignment failures may be encountered when an
			initiator requests assignment of IP addresses/prefixes:
			o An initiator asks for IPvx, but IPvx address assignment is not
			supported by the responder.
			o An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv4
			address assignment is supported by the responder.
			o An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv6
			prefix assignment is supported by the responder.
			o An initiator asks for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only one
			address family can be assigned by the responder for policy
			reasons.
	Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type		Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type
	that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure.		that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure.
	That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine		That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine
	why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try		why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try
	using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-		using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-
	all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an		all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an
	IKEv2 responder.		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. IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED Status Types
	The following notification status types are defined:		IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED status types (see Section 7)
			are defined to inform the initiator about the responser's address
			family assignment support capabilities, and to report to the
			initiator the reason why an address assignment failed. These
			notifications are used by the initiator to adjust its behavior
			accordingly (Section 5).
	o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This status type indicates that the requested		No data is associated with these notifications.
	address family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent
	exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that
	address family.
	o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv6 is		5. An Update to RFC7296
	supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
	include any IPv4-related object.
	Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6		If the initiator is dual-stack, it MUST include both address families
	addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6		in its request (absent explicit policy/configuration otherwise).
	address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification
	status type. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but
	gets the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the
	responder, the IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6
	address(es) only in subsequent requests.
	o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv4 is		The responder MUST include IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED (or IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED)
	supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT		status type in a response to an address assignment request in the
	include any IPv6-related object.		following cases:
	Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6		1. The responder only supports IPv6 (or IPv4) address assignment, or
	addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es)
	and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type. If the
	initiator requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the
	IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the responder,
	the IPv4-capable initiator should request IPv4 address(es) only in
	subsequent requests.
	o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only a single		2. The responder supports both IPv4 and IPv6 address assignments,
	address family can be assigned per request, not both. This status		but it is configured to reply to requests asking for both address
	type is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6		families with only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4 address).
	addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address
	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
	to the responder.		local to the responder.
	If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address		If the initiator receives IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED or IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED
	families, it replies with the preferred address family and		notification from the responder, the initiator MUST NOT send a
	includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification status type. Upon		request for an alternate address family not supported by the
	receipt of this status type, the initiator MAY re-issue another		responder.
	configuration request to ask for an additional address family.
			If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4
			address) but receives IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED (or IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED)
			notification from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request
			for IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es)).
	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 status types, the repsonder/initiator		the aforementioned notification status types, the repsonder/initiator
	MUST 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		6. Security Considerations
	This document adheres to the security considerations defined in		This document adheres to the security considerations defined in
	[RFC7296].		[RFC7296].
	6. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types		This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types
	- Status 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 status types:		ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following status types:
	Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference		Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference
	TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document]		TBD IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED [This-Document]
	TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]		TBD IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED [This-Document]
	TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
	TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
	7. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.		Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.
	Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, and Daniel Migault		Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, Daniel Migault, and
	for the comments.		Tero Kivinen for the comments.
	8. References		9. References
	8.1. Normative References		9.1. 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>.
	[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.		[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
	Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2		Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
	(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October		(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
	2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.		2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	8.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley,		[RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley,
	N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner,		N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner,
	"An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849,		"An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Mohamed Boucadair		Mohamed Boucadair
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	67 lines changed or deleted		73 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/