idnits 2.17.1 draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-03.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 (October 5, 2012) is 4218 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1981 (Obsoleted by RFC 8201) ** 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 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reference: RFC 6145 (Obsoleted by RFC 7915) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6555 (Obsoleted by RFC 8305) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-base-28 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3316 (Obsoleted by RFC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: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 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: April 8, 2013 Deutsche Telekom AG 7 C. Byrne 8 T-Mobile 9 G. Chen 10 China Mobile 11 October 5, 2012 13 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Cellular Hosts 14 draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-03 16 Abstract 18 This document lists a set of IPv6-related requirements to be 19 supported by cellular hosts. 21 This document updates RFC3316. 23 Requirements Language 25 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 26 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 27 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 29 Status of this Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2013. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Connectivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.1. WiFi Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 3. Advanced Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4. Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 5. APIs & Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 1. Introduction 80 [RFC3316] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts 81 to connect to 3GPP cellular networks. Since the publication of that 82 document, new functions have been specified within the 3GPP and the 83 IETF whilst others have been updated. Moreover, in the light of 84 recent IPv6 production deployments, additional features to facilitate 85 IPv6-only deployments while accessing IPv4-only service are to be 86 considered. 88 This document updates [RFC3316] with additional new functionalities 89 which cellular hosts need to support. 91 While [RFC3316] considered only GPRS and UMTS networks; this document 92 also considers EPS (Evolved Packet System). 94 A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided 95 in [RFC6459]. 97 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. 99 PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6 100 addresses [RFC6052]. 102 1.1. Scope 104 Various types of nodes can be connected to 3GPP networks requiring 105 specific functions. Indeed, a 3GPP network can be used to connect 106 user equipment such as a mobile telephone, a CPE or a machine-to- 107 machine (M2M) device. Because of this diversity of terminals, it is 108 necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities valid for any node 109 directly connecting to a 3GPP network. This document describes these 110 functionalities. 112 This document is structured to initially provide the generic IPv6 113 requirements which are valid for all nodes, whatever their function 114 or service (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) capability. The document also 115 contains, dedicated sections covering specific functionalities the 116 specific device types must support (e.g., smartphones, devices 117 providing some LAN functions (mobile CPE or broadband dongles)). 119 M2M devices profile is not considered in the first version of this 120 document. 122 The requirements listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and 3GPP 123 EPS access. For EPS, "PDN type" terminology is used instead of "PDP 124 context". 126 2. Connectivity Requirements 128 REQ#1: The cellular host MUST support the IPv6 addressing 129 architecture described in ([RFC4291]). For address 130 representation, [RFC5952] MUST be supported. 132 REQ#2: The cellular host MUST support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP 133 Contexts. 135 This allows each operator to select their own strategy 136 regarding IPv6 introduction. Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP 137 contexts MUST be supported in addition to the IPv4 PDP 138 context. IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request 139 acceptance depends on the mobile network configuration. 141 REQ#3: The cellular host MUST comply with the behavior defined in 142 [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP context 143 type. In particular, the cellular host MUST request an IPv6 PDP 144 context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and requesting an 145 IPv4v6 PDP context if the cellular host is dual stack or when 146 the cellular host is not aware of connectivity types requested 147 by devices connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN 148 capabilities): 150 * If the requested IPv4v6 PDP context is not supported by the 151 network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the 152 cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 address 153 and/or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It MAY initiate 154 another PDP request in addition to the one already 155 activated for a given APN. 157 * If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows only 158 one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular host 159 MUST NOT request a second PDP context to the same APN for 160 the other IP address family. 162 REQ#4: The cellular host MUST support the PCO (Protocol 163 Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 164 address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s). 166 In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the 167 cellular host about various services, including DNS server 168 information. It does not require any specific protocol to 169 be supported and it is already deployed in IPv4 cellular 170 networks to convey such DNS information. 172 REQ#5: The cellular host MUST support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow 173 Templates (TFT) [TS.24008]. 175 Traffic Flow Templates are employing a Packet Filter to 176 couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a dedicated 177 PDP-Context and radio resources can be provided by the 178 mobile network for certain IP traffic. 180 REQ#6: The cellular host MUST support ICMPv6 ([RFC4443]). 182 The base protocol MUST be fully implemented by every IPv6 183 node as indicated in Section 2 of [RFC4443]. 185 REQ#7: The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol 186 ([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]). 188 In particular, MTU communication via Router Advertisement 189 SHOULD be supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a 190 standard MTU setting due to inconsistencies in GTP 191 [RFC3314] mobility tunnel infrastructure deployments. 193 REQ#8: The cellular host MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address 194 Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) apart from the exceptions noted in 195 [TS.23060] (3G) and [TS.23401] (LTE): 197 Stateless mode is the only way to configure a cellular 198 host. The GGSN must allocate a prefix that is unique 199 within its scope to each primary PDP context. 201 The cellular host MUST use the interface identifier sent in 202 PDP Context Accept message to configure its link local 203 address. The cellular host may use a different Interface 204 Identifiers to configure its global addresses. 206 REQ#9: The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options 207 [RFC6106] for DNS configuration. 209 The support of this function allows for a consistent method 210 of informing cellular hosts about DNS recursive servers 211 across various types of access networks. The cellular host 212 SHOULD support RA-based DNS information discovery. 214 REQ#10: The cellular host SHOULD embed a DHCPv6 client [RFC3736]. 216 If [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD 217 retrieve DNS information using stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736]. 219 If the cellular host receives the DNS information in 220 several channels for the same interface, the following 221 preference order MUST be followed: 222 1. PCO 223 2. RA 224 3. DHCPv6 226 REQ#11: The cellular host SHOULD support a method to locally 227 construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052]. A method to 228 learn PREFIX64 SHOULD be supported by the cellular host. 230 This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 referrals 231 on IPv6-only access networks. 233 The cellular host SHOULD implement the method specified in 234 [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] to retrieve the 235 PREFIX64. 237 REQ#12: The cellular host SHOULD implement the Customer Side 238 Translator function (CLAT, [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]) function 239 which is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. 241 CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only 242 application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only PDP. 243 CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability [RFC6146] in the 244 core network. 246 REQ#13: The cellular device SHOULD embed a DNS64 function [RFC6147]. 248 Local DNS64 functionality allows for compatibility with 249 DNSSEC. Means to configure or discover a PREFIX64 is also 250 required on the cellular device. 252 REQ#14: The cellular host SHOULD support PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]. 254 The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery 255 consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also 256 gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections to 257 the user. Indeed, because several stateful devices may be 258 deployed in mobile networks (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), 259 PCP can be used by the cellular host to control network 260 based NAT and Firewall functions which will reduce per- 261 application signaling and save battery consumption. 263 REQ#15: The cellular host SHOULD support means to prefer native IPv6 264 connection over NAT64 devices or NAT44 when the cellular host 265 gets dual stack connectivity. 267 Cellular hosts SHOULD follow the procedure specified in 268 [RFC6724] for source address selection. 270 Some potential issues are discussed in 271 [I-D.ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension] for MIFed devices. 273 REQ#16: The cellular host SHOULD support the procedure defined in 274 [RFC6555]. 276 REQ#17: The cellular host SHOULD NOT perform Duplicate Address 277 Detection (DAD) for these Global IPv6 addresses (as the GGSN or 278 PDN-GW must not configure any IPv6 addresses using the prefix 279 allocated to the cellular host). 281 REQ#18: The cellular device MAY embed a BIH function [RFC6535] 282 facilitating the communication between an IPv4 application and 283 an IPv6 server. 285 2.1. WiFi Connectivity 287 It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a Wi-Fi interface 288 in addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to 289 be connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some 290 generic requirements: 292 REQ#19: IPv6 MUST be supported on the Wi-Fi interface. 294 REQ#20: DHCPv6 client SHOULD be supported on Wi-Fi interface 295 ([RFC3736]). 297 REQ#21: Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options 298 for DNS configuration ([RFC6106]). 300 3. Advanced Requirements 302 REQ#22: The cellular host MUST support Path MTU discovery 303 ([RFC1981]). If the MTU used by cellular hosts is larger than 304 1280 bytes, they can rely on Path MTU discovery function to 305 discover the real path MTU. 307 REQ#23: The cellular host SHOULD support the Privacy Extensions for 308 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 ([RFC4941]). 310 The activation of privacy extension makes it more 311 difficult to track a host over time when compared to 312 using a permanent interface identifier. [RFC4941] does 313 not require any DAD mechanism to be activated as the 314 GGSN (or PDN-GW) MUST NOT configure any global address 315 based on the prefix allocated to the cellular host. 317 REQ#24: The cellular host SHOULD support ROHC for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). 319 Bandwidth in mobile environments must be optimized as 320 much as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce 321 bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of 322 having bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. 324 REQ#25: The cellular host SHOULD support IPv6 Router Advertisement 325 Flags Options ([RFC5175]). 327 Some flags are used by the GGSN (or PDN-GW) to inform 328 cellular hosts about the autoconfiguration process. 330 REQ#26: The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement 331 extension for communicating default router preferences and 332 more-specific routes as described in [RFC4191]. 334 This function can be used for instance for traffic 335 offload. 337 4. Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 339 This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones or 340 dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to 341 other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices 342 are sharing the same GPRS, UMTS or EPS connection. In addition to 343 the generic requirements listed in Section 2, these cellular devices 344 have to meet the requirements listed below. 346 Prefix delegation which allows to allocate a shorter prefix to a 347 cellular host is only available since 3GPP Release 10. For 348 deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the cellular 349 device has to support a mechanism to enable sharing a /64 prefix 350 between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN (WAN interface) and the 351 LAN interfaces. 353 [NOTE: Update the text with a pointer to I-D.byrne-v6ops-64share 354 once adopted in v6ops.] 356 REQ#27: The cellular device MUST support Prefix Delegation 357 capabilities [RFC3633] and MUST support Prefix Exclude Option 358 for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in [RFC6603]. 359 Particularly, it MUST behave as a Requesting Router. 361 Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an 362 alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based 363 services delivery; especially with the advent of 364 smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for 365 an efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than 366 /64 to cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get 367 its own /64 prefix and multilink subnet issues to be 368 avoided. 370 In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using 371 DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two 372 prefixes: 374 (1) one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC 375 mechanism and 377 (2) another one delegated for LANs acquired 378 during Prefix Delegation operation. 380 Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both 381 the WAN and the Delegated Prefix to be aggregatable, so 382 the subscriber can be identified using a single prefix. 384 Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating 385 router (GGSN/PDN-GW) will have to ensure [RFC3633] 386 compliancy (e.g., halving the Delegated prefix and 387 assigning the WAN prefix out of the 1st half and the 388 prefix to be delegated to the terminal from the 2nd 389 half). 391 REQ#28: The cellular device MUST be compliant with the CPE 392 requirements specified in [RFC6204]. 394 REQ#29: The cellular device SHOULD support the Customer Side 395 Translator (CLAT) [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]. 397 Various IP devices are likely to be connected to 398 cellular device, acting as a CPE. Some of these 399 devices can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or 400 IPv4-only. IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device 401 does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for 402 hosts connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices. 404 In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated 405 from devices located on LAN segment side and target 406 IPv4 nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT 407 function in the cellular device. As elaborated in 408 Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4 409 applications to continue running over an IPv6-only 410 host. 412 REQ#30: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the 413 cellular device SHOULD relay that upstream MTU information to 414 the downstream attached LAN devices in RA. 416 Since 3GPP networks extensively use IP-in-IP/UDP GTP 417 tunnels, the effective MTU is frequently effectively 418 reduced to 1440 bytes. While a host may generate 419 packets with an MTU of 1500 bytes, this results in 420 undesirable fragmentation of the GTP IP/UDP packets. 422 Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more 423 harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where 424 end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU 425 size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels. 427 5. APIs & Applications 429 REQ#31: Name resolution libraries MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6. 431 In particular, the cellular host MUST support 432 [RFC3596]. 434 REQ#32: Applications MUST be independent of the underlying IP 435 address family. 437 This means applications must be IP version agnostic. 439 REQ#33: Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986]. For example, 440 SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in 441 [RFC5954]. 443 6. Security Considerations 445 The security considerations identified in [RFC3316] are to be taken 446 into account. 448 REQ#34: If the cellular device provides LAN features, it SHOULD be 449 compliant with the security requirements specified in 450 [RFC6092]. 452 7. IANA Considerations 454 This document does not require any action from IANA. 456 8. Acknowledgements 458 Many thanks to H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. Lemon, B. 459 Sarikaya, J. Korhonen and M. Mawatari for the discussion in the v6ops 460 mailing list. 462 9. References 464 9.1. Normative References 466 [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery 467 for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996. 469 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 470 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 472 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 473 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 474 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 475 June 2002. 477 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 478 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 479 October 2003. 481 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 482 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 483 December 2003. 485 [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 486 (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. 488 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 489 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 490 RFC 3986, January 2005. 492 [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and 493 More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. 495 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 496 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 498 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 499 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 500 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 502 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 503 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 504 September 2007. 506 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 507 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 509 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 510 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 511 IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. 513 [RFC5175] Haberman, B. and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Router Advertisement 514 Flags Option", RFC 5175, March 2008. 516 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 517 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, 518 March 2010. 520 [RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet 521 Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet 522 Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010. 524 [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 525 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010. 527 [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential 528 Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", 529 RFC 5954, August 2010. 531 [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 532 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 533 October 2010. 535 [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 536 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 537 RFC 6106, November 2010. 539 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 540 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 542 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 543 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 544 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 546 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 547 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 548 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 549 April 2011. 551 [RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts 552 Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012. 554 [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with 555 Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. 557 [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, 558 "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix 559 Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012. 561 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 562 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 563 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. 565 9.2. Informative References 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-28 (work in progress), October 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 [RFC3314] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third 591 Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards", 592 RFC 3314, September 2002. 594 [RFC3316] Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and J. 595 Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some 596 Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts", RFC 3316, 597 April 2003. 599 [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 600 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing 601 Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, 602 January 2011. 604 [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. 605 Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge 606 Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. 608 [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., 609 Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation 610 Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", 611 RFC 6459, January 2012. 613 [TS.23060] 614 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service 615 description; Stage 2", September 2011. 617 [TS.23401] 618 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 619 for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network 620 (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011. 622 [TS.24008] 623 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core 624 network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011. 626 Authors' Addresses 628 David Binet 629 France Telecom 630 Rennes, 631 France 633 Email: david.binet@orange.com 634 Mohamed Boucadair 635 France Telecom 636 Rennes, 35000 637 France 639 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 641 Ales Vizdal 642 Deutsche Telekom AG 644 Phone: 645 Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz 646 URI: 648 Cameron Byrne 649 T-Mobile 650 USA 652 Phone: 653 Email: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com 655 Gang Chen 656 China Mobile 658 Email: phdgang@gmail.com