idnits 2.17.1 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-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 -- The document date (November 12, 2017) is 2355 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 195, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). 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 Intended status: Standards Track November 12, 2017 5 Expires: May 16, 2018 7 IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence 8 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage 13 IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2018. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 8.2. 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 2. Terminology 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 109 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 110 [RFC2119]. 112 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In 113 particular, readers should be familiar with "Initiator" and 114 "Responder" terms used in that document. 116 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? 118 Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that 119 is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That 120 code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given 121 address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using 122 another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code 123 when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder. 125 INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the 126 IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. 128 4. An Update to RFC7296 130 The following notification codes are defined: 132 o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address 133 family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with 134 the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address 135 family. 137 o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is 138 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 139 include any IPv4-related object. 141 Concretely, if the initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 142 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 143 address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification 144 code. If the initiator requested only IPv4 address(es) but gets 145 the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the 146 IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in 147 subsequent requests. 149 o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is 150 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 151 include any IPv6-related object. 153 Concretely, if the initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 154 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) 155 and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator 156 requested only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED 157 notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator 158 should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests. 160 o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only a single 161 address family can be assigned per request, not both. This code 162 is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 163 addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address 164 family can be assigned per request by the responder. 166 The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local 167 to the responder. 169 If a responder received a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address 170 families, it replies with the preferred address family and 171 includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification code. Upon receipt of 172 this code, the initiator MAY re-issue another configuration 173 request to ask for an additional address family. 175 For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by 176 the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/Initiator MUST 177 follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. 179 5. Security Considerations 181 This document adheres to the security considerations defined in 182 [RFC7849]. 184 6. IANA Considerations 186 This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types 187 - Error Types" registry available at: 188 https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ 189 ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes: 191 Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference 192 TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] 193 TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 194 TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 195 TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 197 7. Acknowledgements 199 Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. 201 Thanks to Paul Wouters for the comments. 203 8. References 205 8.1. Normative References 207 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 208 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 210 . 212 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 213 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 214 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 215 2014, . 217 8.2. Informative References 219 [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, 220 N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, 221 "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, 222 DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, 223 . 225 Author's Address 227 Mohamed Boucadair 228 Orange 229 Rennes 35000 230 France 232 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com