idnits 2.17.1 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7296, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (October 6, 2017) is 2394 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'This-Document' is mentioned on line 184, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 194, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Boucadair 3 Internet-Draft Orange 4 Updates: 7296 (if approved) October 6, 2017 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: April 9, 2018 8 IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence 9 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage 14 IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2018. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 1. Introduction 63 As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network 64 configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the 65 cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN 66 for the other IP address family. The 3GPP network informs the 67 cellular host about allowed Packet Data Protocol (PDP) types by means 68 of Session Management (SM) cause codes. In particular, the following 69 cause codes can be returned: 71 o cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed" - This cause code is used 72 by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv4 is allowed for 73 the requested Public Data Network (PDN) connectivity. 75 o cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed" - This cause code is used 76 by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv6 is allowed for 77 the requested PDN connectivity. 79 o cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed" - This cause code 80 is used by the network to indicate that the requested PDN 81 connectivity is accepted with the restriction that only single IP 82 version bearers are allowed. 84 If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network 85 but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will 86 be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. 87 It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address 88 family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access 89 Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is 90 to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts. 92 According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the 93 network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], 94 there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the UE why an IP 95 address family is not assigned or whether that UE should retry with 96 another address family. 98 This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification 99 codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. 101 These notification codes are not specific to 3GPP architectures, but 102 can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are 103 provided as an illustration example. 105 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In 106 particular, readers should be familiar with "Initiator" and 107 "Responder" terms used in that document. 109 2. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? 111 Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that 112 is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That 113 code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given 114 address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using 115 another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code 116 when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder. 118 INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the 119 IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. 121 3. An Update to RFC7296 123 The following notification codes are defined: 125 o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address 126 family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with 127 the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address 128 family. 130 o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is 131 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 132 include any IPv4-related object. 134 Concretely, if the initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 135 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 136 address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification 137 code. If the initiator requested only IPv4 address(es) but gets 138 the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the 139 IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in 140 subsequent requests. 142 o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is 143 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 144 include any IPv6-related object. 146 Concretely, if the initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 147 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) 148 and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator 149 requested only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED 150 notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator 151 should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests. 153 o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code is returned as a response to a 154 request, that includes both IPv4 and IPv6 address(es)/prefixe(e)s, 155 to indicate that only a single address family can be assigned per 156 request. The address family to be used is defined by a policy 157 that is local to the responder. If a responder received a request 158 for both IPv4 and IPv6 address families, it replies with the 159 preferred address family and includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED 160 notification code. Upon receipt of this code, the initiator MAY 161 re-issue another configuration request to ask for an additional 162 address family. 164 For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by 165 the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/Initiator MUST 166 follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. 168 4. Security Considerations 170 This document adheres to the security considerations defined in 171 [RFC7849]. 173 5. IANA Considerations 175 This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types 176 - Error Types" registry available at: 177 https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ 178 ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes: 180 Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference 181 TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] 182 TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 183 TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 184 TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 186 6. Acknowledgements 188 Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. 190 7. References 192 7.1. Normative References 194 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 195 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 196 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 197 . 199 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 200 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 201 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 202 2014, . 204 7.2. Informative References 206 [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, 207 N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, 208 "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, 210 . 212 Author's Address 214 Mohamed Boucadair 215 Orange 216 Rennes 35000 217 France 219 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com