idnits 2.17.1 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 date (September 20, 2018) is 2037 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 198, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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) September 20, 2018 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: March 24, 2019 8 IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence 9 draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-03 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 March 24, 2019. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2018 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 1. Introduction 64 As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network 65 configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the 66 cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN 67 for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership 68 Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet 69 Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause 70 codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned: 72 o cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed": This cause code is used by 73 the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv4 is allowed for the 74 requested Public Data Network (PDN) connectivity. 76 o cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed": This cause code is used by 77 the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv6 is allowed for the 78 requested PDN connectivity. 80 o cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed": This cause code 81 is used by the network to indicate that the requested PDN 82 connectivity is accepted with the restriction that only single IP 83 version bearers are allowed. 85 If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network 86 but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will 87 be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. 88 It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address 89 family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access 90 Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is 91 to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts. 93 According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the 94 network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], 95 there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User 96 Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether 97 that UE should retry with another address family. 99 This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification 100 codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. 102 These notification codes are not specific to 3GPP architectures, but 103 can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are 104 provided as an illustration example. 106 2. Terminology 108 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 109 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 110 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 111 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 112 capitals, as shown here. 114 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In 115 particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and 116 "responder" terms used in that document. 118 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? 120 Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that 121 is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That 122 code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given 123 address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using 124 another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code 125 when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder. 127 INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the 128 IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. 130 4. An Update to RFC7296 132 The following notification codes are defined: 134 o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address 135 family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with 136 the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address 137 family. 139 o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is 140 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 141 include any IPv4-related object. 143 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 144 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 145 address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification 146 code. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but gets 147 the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the 148 IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in 149 subsequent requests. 151 o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is 152 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 153 include any IPv6-related object. 155 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 156 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) 157 and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator 158 requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED 159 notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator 160 should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests. 162 o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only a single 163 address family can be assigned per request, not both. This code 164 is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 165 addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address 166 family can be assigned per request by the responder. 168 The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local 169 to the responder. 171 If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address 172 families, it replies with the preferred address family and 173 includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification code. Upon receipt of 174 this code, the initiator MAY re-issue another configuration 175 request to ask for an additional address family. 177 For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by 178 the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/initiator MUST 179 follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. 181 5. Security Considerations 183 This document adheres to the security considerations defined in 184 [RFC7849]. 186 6. IANA Considerations 188 This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types 189 - Error Types" registry available at: 191 https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ 192 ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes: 194 Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference 195 TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] 196 TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 197 TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 198 TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 200 7. Acknowledgements 202 Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. 204 Thanks to Paul Wouters for the comments. 206 8. References 208 8.1. Normative References 210 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 211 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 212 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 213 . 215 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 216 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 217 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 218 2014, . 220 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 221 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 222 May 2017, . 224 8.2. Informative References 226 [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, 227 N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, 228 "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, 229 DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, 230 . 232 Author's Address 233 Mohamed Boucadair 234 Orange 235 Rennes 35000 236 France 238 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com