idnits 2.17.1 draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC3316, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-02-27) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 21, 2012) is 4234 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC6535' is mentioned on line 195, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3646' is defined on line 465, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3736 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4941 (Obsoleted by RFC 8981) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5996 (Obsoleted by RFC 7296) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6106 (Obsoleted by RFC 8106) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6145 (Obsoleted by RFC 7915) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6555 (Obsoleted by RFC 8305) == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-base-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3316 (Obsoleted by RFC 7066) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6204 (Obsoleted by RFC 7084) Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 V6OPS Working Group D. Binet 3 Internet-Draft M. Boucadair 4 Updates: 3316 (if approved) France Telecom 5 Intended status: Informational A. Vizdal 6 Expires: March 25, 2013 Deutsche Telekom AG 7 September 21, 2012 9 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Cellular Hosts 10 draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-01 12 Abstract 14 This document lists a set of IPv6-related requirements to be 15 supported by cellular hosts. 17 This document updates RFC3316. 19 Requirements Language 21 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 22 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 23 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 25, 2013. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Connectivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.1. WiFi Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 3. Advanced Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 4. Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 5. APIs & Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 1. Introduction 75 [RFC3316] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts 76 to connect to GPRS and UMTS networks. Since the publication of that 77 document, new functions have been specified within 3GPP and IETF 78 while others have been updated. 80 Moreover, in light of recent IPv6 experiments and trials, additional 81 features to ease IPv6-only deployments while continuing accessing to 82 IPv4-only service are to be considered. 84 This document updates [RFC3316] with new functionalities to be 85 supported by cellular hosts. Note [RFC3316] considered only GPRS and 86 UMTS networks; this document also considers EPS (Evolved Packet 87 System). 89 A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided 90 in [RFC6459]. 92 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. 94 1.1. Scope 96 Various types of nodes are likely to be connected to 3GPP networks 97 and will require specific functions. Indeed, a 3GPP network can be 98 used to connect a phone, a CPE, M2M device, etc. Because of the 99 diversity of terminals which may connect to 3GPP networks, this 100 document provides first some generic IPv6 functionalities which are 101 valid for any node to be directly connected to 3GPP networks, 102 whatever its function or whatever the services (e.g., DNS, SIP) it 103 supports. Then, dedicated sections are included to cover specific 104 functionalities to be supported by some type of devices (e.g., 105 smartphones, devices providing some LAN functions (mobile CPE or 106 dongles), M2M devices). 108 M2M devices specifications are not considered in the first version of 109 this document. 111 The requirements listed below are valid for 3GPP GPRS, UMTS and 3GPP 112 EPS access except that for EPS the cellular host requests IPv4v6 PDN 113 type (respectively IPv6 PDN type when the GPRS cellular host has to 114 request an IPv4v6 PDP context (respectively an IPv6 PDP context). 116 2. Connectivity Requirements 117 REQ#1: The cellular host MUST support IPv6 addressing architecture 118 ([RFC4291]). For address representation, [RFC5952] MUST be 119 supported. 121 REQ#2: The cellular host MUST support both IPv6 PDP and IPv4v6 PDP 122 contexts 124 This allows each operator to select its own strategy regarding 125 IPv6 introduction. Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP contexts MUST be 126 supported in addition to IPv4 PDP context. IPv4, IPv6 or 127 IPv4v6 PDP-Context request accept depends on the mobile network 128 support and configuration. 130 REQ#3: The cellular host MUST comply with the behavior defined in 131 [TS.23060] and [TS.24008] in terms of requested PDP context type. 132 In particular the cellular host MUST request an IPv6 PDP context 133 if the cellular host is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP 134 context if the cellular host is dual stack or when the cellular 135 host is not aware of connectivity types requested by devices 136 connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities): 138 * If the requested PDP context IPv4v6 is not supported but IPv4 139 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, the cellular host is configured 140 with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix. It MAY initiate 141 another PDP request than the one already activated for a given 142 APN. 144 * If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows only one 145 IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular host MUST NOT 146 request a second PDP context to the same APN for the other IP 147 address family. 149 REQ#4: The cellular host MUST support the PCO (Protocol 150 Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 address(es) 151 of the Recursive DNS server(s). 153 In band signaling is a convenient method to inform the cellular 154 host about various services, including DNS server information. 155 It does not require any specific protocol to be supported and 156 it is already deployed in IPv4 cellular networks to convey such 157 DNS information. 159 REQ#5: The cellular host MUST support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow 160 Templates (TFT) [TS.24008]. 162 REQ#6: The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options 163 [RFC6106] for DNS configuration. 165 The support of this function allows for consistent method to 166 inform cellular host about DNS recursive server across various 167 access network types. The cellular host SHOULD support RA- 168 based DNS information discovery. 170 REQ#7: The cellular host SHOULD embed a DHCPv6 client [RFC3315] 172 In order to get some consistent way to inform cellular host 173 about DNS recursive server across various access networks and 174 in case [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD 175 retrieving DNS information using stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736]. 177 REQ#8: The cellular host SHOULD support a method to locally 178 construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052]. 180 This allows to solve issues related to application which uses 181 referral with IPv4 literals. 183 REQ#9: Particularly, the cellular host SHOULD support Customer Side 184 Translator function (CLAT, [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]) function 185 which is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. 187 As reported in [CLAT], 15% of applications are not compatible 188 with IPv6-only connectivity. Activating CLAT function in the 189 cellular host would allow to solve this problem and offer a 190 similar application experience for both users with IPv6-only 191 hosts and IPv4-enabled hosts. CLAT function is compatible with 192 the introduction of NAT64 capabilities in the core network. 194 [DISCUSSION NOTE: Should we add this new requirement: "The 195 cellular device SHOULD embed a BIH function [RFC6535] 196 facilitating the communication between IPv4 application and 197 IPv6 server"?] 199 REQ#10: The cellular device MAY embed a DNS64 function [RFC6147]. 201 This allows to be compatible with DNSSEC. A means to configure 202 PREFIX64 is required to be supported. 204 REQ#11: The cellular host SHOULD support PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]. 206 The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery 207 consumption exacerbated b keepalive messages and also to allow 208 for successful incoming connections. Indeed, because several 209 stateful devices may be enabled in mobile networks (e.g., NAT, 210 Firewalls), PCP can be used by the cellular host to control and 211 to retrieve lifetime of NAT bindings, to ease NAT and Firewall 212 traversal for applications embedding IP address, to reduce 213 keep-alive messages and inherently save battery consumption as 214 reported in [I-D.chen-pcp-mobile-deployment]. 216 [DISCUSSION NOTE: Since [I-D.chen-pcp-mobile-deployment] is 217 still an individual submission, should avoid referencing it?] 219 REQ#12: A method to learn PREFIX64 SHOULD be supported by cellular 220 hosts. 222 The cellular host SHOULD implement the method specified in 223 [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] to retrieve the 224 PREFIX64. In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts SHOULD 225 follow [I-D.boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option] to learn the 226 IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64 device. 228 [DISCUSSION NOTE: Since 229 [I-D.boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option] is still an 230 individual submission, should we remove this item?] 232 REQ#13: The cellular host SHOULD support means to prefer native IPv6 233 connection instead of crossing IPv4/IPv6 interworking devices. 235 Cellular hosts SHOULD follow the procedure specified in 236 [RFC6724] for address source selection. 238 Some potential issues are discussed in 239 [I-D.ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension] for MIFed devices. 241 REQ#14: The cellular host SHOULD support the procedure defined in 242 [RFC6555]. 244 REQ#15: The cellular host MUST support the ICMPv6 protocol 245 ([RFC4443]) 246 The base protocol MUST be fully implemented by every IPv6 node 247 as indicated in Section 2 of [RFC4443]. 249 REQ#16: The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol 250 ([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]). 252 REQ#17: The cellular host MAY support DHCPv6. 254 DHCPv6 may be useful for cellular host configuration, besides 255 the address configuration itself where stateless addressing is 256 recommended. 258 REQ#18: The cellular host MUST support Stateless Address Auto 259 Configuration ([RFC4862]) apart from the exceptions noted in 260 [TS.23060] (3G) or [TS.23401] (LTE): 262 Stateless mode is the only way to configure a cellular host. 263 The GGSN must allocate a prefix that is unique within its scope 264 to each primary PDP context. 266 The cellular host MUST use the interface identifier sent in PDP 267 Context Accept message to configure its link local address. 268 The cellular host may use a different Interface Identifiers to 269 configure its global addresses. 271 REQ#19: The cellular host SHOULD NOT perform Duplicate Address 272 Detection (DAD) for these Global IPv6 addresses (as the GGSN or 273 PDN-GW must not configure any IPv6 addresses using the prefix 274 allocated to the cellular host). 276 2.1. WiFi Connectivity 278 It is more and more common that cellular hosts have some Wi-Fi 279 interfaces in addition to cellular interface. These hosts are likely 280 to be connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some 281 generic requirements: 283 REQ#20: IPv6 MUST be supported on the Wi-Fi interface. 285 REQ#21: DHCPv6 client SHOULD be supported on Wi-Fi interface 286 ([RFC3736]) 288 REQ#22: Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options 289 for DNS configuration ([RFC6106]) 291 3. Advanced Requirements 293 REQ#23: The device SHOULD support the Privacy Extensions for 294 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 ([RFC4941]) 296 The activation of privacy extension makes it hard to track a 297 host compared to using the same interface identifier over the 298 time. [RFC4941] does not require any DAD mechanism to be 299 activated as the GGSN (or PDN-GW) MUST NOT configure any global 300 address based on the prefix allocated to the cellular host. 302 REQ#24: The device SHOULD support ROHC for IPv6 ([RFC5795]) 304 Bandwidth in mobile environments must be optimized as much as 305 possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce bandwidth 306 consumption and to reduce the impact of having bigger header in 307 IPv6 compared to IPv4. 309 REQ#25: The device SHOULD support IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags 310 Options ([RFC5175]). 312 Some flags are used by GGSN (or PDN-GW) to inform cellular 313 hosts about autoconfiguration process. 315 REQ#26: The device SHOULD support Path MTU discovery ([RFC1981]). 316 If MTU used by cellular hosts is larger than 1280 bytes, they can 317 rely on Path MTU discovery function to discover real path MTU. 319 REQ#27: The devices SHOULD support IPsec version 2 tunnel mode 320 (IKE2, [RFC5996]). 322 REQ#28: The device MAY support [I-D.boucadair-6man-sip-proxy] to 323 discover a SIP Proxy Server. 325 Access to sensitive SIP-based service offering relies on the 326 provisioning of the IP reachability information (IP address or 327 FQDN) of the outbound SIP Proxy Server [RFC3261]. Two means 328 have been defined in the past to provision such information: 329 (1) DHCPv6 SIP options or (2) Dedicated 3GPP PCO to convey the 330 address of the P-CSCF. Nevertheless, these means are not 331 sufficient because of the following reasons: (1) PCO-IE is not 332 mandatory in 3G networks (e.g., PCO information may not be 333 supported by terminals). (2) DHCPv6 is not required in all 3GPP 334 releases; moreover the support of DHCPv6 client is not 335 mandatory in the IETF IPv6 node requirements. (3) PCO-IE is not 336 available in non-3GPP networks. 338 This is very critical when the UE performs a network attachment 339 in a non-3GPP network because the user won't have access to 340 SIP-based services if no alternative means are supported. 342 [DISCUSSION NOTE: Since this is still an individual submission, 343 should we remove this item?] 345 4. Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 347 Cellular devices may provide some IP service access to other devices 348 connected to them. In such case, all connected devices are sharing 349 the same GPRS, UMTS or EPS connection. These cellular devices can be 350 a CPE or specific cellular hosts commercialized to set up rapidly 351 LANs in various environment, or it can also be a smartphone or a 352 dongles with tethering features. In addition to the generic 353 requirements listed in Section 2, these hosts will have to embed 354 specific functions in order to allow other IP-enabled devices to get 355 IP connectivity services through these cellular devices. 357 REQ#29: The cellular device MUST support ND Proxy function [RFC4389] 358 to enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards 359 the GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces. 361 Prefix delegation which allows to allocate a shorter prefix to 362 a cellular host is only available since 3GPP Release 10. ND 363 Proxy can provide a solution until Release 10 is widely 364 available by allowing the cellular host to share the 3GPP link 365 assigned /64 prefix with LAN attached hosts. This solution has 366 some drawbacks regarding Duplicate Address Detection and 367 multilink subnet requirements but it provides IPv6 connectivity 368 in such scenarios. 370 REQ#30: The cellular device MUST support Prefix Delegation 371 capabilities [RFC3633] and MUST support Prefix Exclude Option for 372 DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in [RFC6603]. 373 Particularly, it MUST behave as a Requesting Router. 375 Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative 376 to fixed networks for home services delivery; especially with 377 the advent of smartphones and dongles. There is a need for an 378 efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to 379 cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 380 prefix and multilink subnet issues to be avoided. 382 In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using DHCPv6, 383 the cellular device will be configured with two prefixes: (1) 384 one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC mechanism and (2) 385 another one delegated for LANs acquired during Prefix 386 Delegation operation. Note that the 3GPP network architecture 387 requires both the WAN and the Delegated Prefix to be 388 aggregatable, so the subscriber can be identified using a 389 single prefix. 391 Without Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router (GGSN/ 392 PDN-GW) will have to assure [RFC3633] compliancy (e.g., halving 393 the Delegated prefix and assigning the WAN prefix out of the 394 1st half and the prefix to be delegated to the terminal from 395 the 2nd half). 397 REQ#31: The cellular device SHOULD support Customer Side Translator 398 (CLAT) [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]. 400 Various IP devices are likely to be connected to cellular 401 device, acting as a CPE. Some of these devices can be dual 402 stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only. IPv6-only 403 connectivity for cellular device does not allow IPv4-only 404 sessions to be established for hosts connected on LAN segment 405 of cellular devices. 407 In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated from 408 devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4 nodes, a 409 solution consists in integrating the CLAT function in the 410 cellular device. As elaborated in Section 2, the CLAT function 411 allows also IPv4 applications to continue running over an IPv6- 412 only host. 414 REQ#32: The cellular device MUST be compliant with CPE requirements 415 specified in [RFC6204]. 417 [DISCUSSION NOTE: Check whether a reference to 418 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis] is to be added too.] 420 5. APIs & Applications 422 REQ#33: Name resolution libraries MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6. 424 REQ#34: Applications MUST be independent of the underlying IP 425 address family. 427 REQ#35: Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986]. For example, 428 SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in [RFC5954]. 430 6. Security Considerations 432 Security considerations identified in [RFC3316] are to be taken into 433 account. 435 REQ#36: If the cellular device provides LAN features, it MUST be 436 compliant with security requirements specified in [RFC6092]. 438 7. IANA Considerations 440 This document does not require any action from IANA. 442 8. References 444 8.1. Normative References 446 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 447 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 449 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 450 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 452 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 453 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 454 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 455 June 2002. 457 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 458 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 459 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 461 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 462 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 463 December 2003. 465 [RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host 466 Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, 467 December 2003. 469 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 470 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 472 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 473 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 474 RFC 3986, January 2005. 476 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 477 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 479 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 480 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 481 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 483 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 484 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 485 September 2007. 487 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 488 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 490 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 491 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 492 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 494 [RFC5175] Haberman, B. and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Router Advertisement 495 Flags Option", RFC 5175, March 2008. 497 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 498 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, 499 March 2010. 501 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 502 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 503 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 505 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 506 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 508 [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential 509 Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", 510 RFC 5954, August 2010. 512 [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen, 513 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 514 RFC 5996, September 2010. 516 [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 517 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 518 October 2010. 520 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 521 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 522 RFC 6106, November 2010. 524 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 525 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 527 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 528 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 529 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 531 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 532 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 533 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 534 April 2011. 536 [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with 537 Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. 539 [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, 540 "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix 541 Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012. 543 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 544 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 545 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. 547 8.2. Informative References 549 [CLAT] "CLAT", . 551 [I-D.boucadair-6man-sip-proxy] 552 Boucadair, M. and D. Binet, "IPv6 RA Option for SIP Proxy 553 Server", draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-00 (work in 554 progress), May 2011. 556 [I-D.boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option] 557 Boucadair, M., "Learn NAT64 PREFIX64s using PCP", 558 draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option-02 (work in 559 progress), September 2012. 561 [I-D.chen-pcp-mobile-deployment] 562 Chen, G., Cao, Z., Boucadair, M., Ales, V., and L. 563 Thiebaut, "Analysis of Port Control Protocol in Mobile 564 Network", draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01 (work in 565 progress), July 2012. 567 [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] 568 Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 569 IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", 570 draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-11 (work in 571 progress), July 2012. 573 [I-D.ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension] 574 Chen, G., Williams, C., Wing, D., and A. Yourtchenko, 575 "Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces", 576 draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-00 (work in 577 progress), July 2012. 579 [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] 580 Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. 581 Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", 582 draft-ietf-pcp-base-27 (work in progress), September 2012. 584 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat] 585 Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: 586 Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", 587 draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 (work in progress), 588 September 2012. 590 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis] 591 Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. 592 Troan, "Advanced Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge 593 Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-01 (work in 594 progress), July 2011. 596 [RFC3316] Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and J. 597 Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some 598 Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts", RFC 3316, 599 April 2003. 601 [RFC4389] Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery 602 Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006. 604 [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 605 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing 606 Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, 607 January 2011. 609 [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. 610 Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge 611 Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. 613 [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., 614 Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation 615 Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", 616 RFC 6459, January 2012. 618 [TS.23060] 619 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service 620 description; Stage 2", September 2011. 622 [TS.23401] 623 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 624 for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network 625 (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011. 627 [TS.24008] 628 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core 629 network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011. 631 Authors' Addresses 633 David Binet 634 France Telecom 635 Rennes, 636 France 638 Email: david.binet@orange.com 640 Mohamed Boucadair 641 France Telecom 642 Rennes, 35000 643 France 645 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 647 Ales Vizdal 648 Deutsche Telekom AG 650 Phone: 651 Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz 652 URI: