idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15.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 (January 12, 2015) is 3385 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6145 (Obsoleted by RFC 7915) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6204 (Obsoleted by RFC 7084) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6434 (Obsoleted by RFC 8504) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6555 (Obsoleted by RFC 8305) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 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 Intended status: Informational France Telecom 5 Expires: July 16, 2015 A. Vizdal 6 Deutsche Telekom AG 7 G. Chen 8 China Mobile 9 N. Heatley 10 EE 11 R. Chandler 12 eircom | meteor 13 January 12, 2015 15 An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices 16 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15 18 Abstract 20 This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the 21 connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third 22 Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document. This 23 document identifies features to deliver IPv4 connectivity service 24 over an IPv6-only transport as well as the required features to 25 connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless 26 network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network). 28 Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area 29 Network) connectivity are in scope. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2015. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2. Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 3. Advanced Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . 10 72 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 80 1. Introduction 82 IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only perennial 83 solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. 84 Several mobile operators have already deployed IPv6 [RFC2460] or are 85 in the pre-deployment phase. One of the major hurdles encountered by 86 mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 87 implementation in mobile devices. 89 [RFC7066] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts 90 to connect to 3GPP mobile networks. In the light of recent IPv6 91 production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only 92 deployments while accessing IPv4-only service are to be considered. 94 This document defines an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing 95 specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations 96 (in particular 3GPP and IETF). The objectives of this effort are: 98 1. List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features 99 for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack 100 mobile deployment contexts. These features cover various network 101 types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EPC (Evolved 102 Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network. 104 2. Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list 105 preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is 106 also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards 107 device vendors. 109 3. Vendors to be aware of a set of features to allow for IPv6 110 connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only 111 transport). 113 The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details. For more 114 information on the 3GPP releases detail, the reader may refer to 115 Section 6.2 of [RFC6459]. 117 Some of the features listed in this profile document require to 118 activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope 119 of this document to list these network-side functions. 121 A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided 122 in [RFC6459]. 124 1.1. Terminology 126 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459]. In 127 addition, the following terms are used: 129 o "3GPP cellular host" (or cellular host for short) denotes a 3GPP 130 device which can be connected to 3GPP mobile networks or IEEE 131 802.11 networks. 133 o "3GPP cellular device" (or cellular device for short) refers to a 134 cellular host which supports the capability to share its WAN (Wide 135 Area Network) connectivity. 137 o "Cellular host" and "mobile host" are used interchangeably. 139 o "Cellular device" and "mobile device" are used interchangeably. 141 PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6 142 addresses [RFC6052]. 144 1.2. Scope 146 A 3GPP mobile network can be used to connect various user equipments 147 such as a mobile telephone, a CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) or a 148 machine-to-machine (M2M) device. Because of this diversity of 149 terminals, it is necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities 150 valid for any node directly connecting to a 3GPP mobile network. 151 This document describes these functionalities. 153 This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6 154 recommendations which are valid for all nodes, whatever their 155 function (e.g., host or CPE) or service (e.g., Session Initiation 156 Protocol (SIP, [RFC3261])) capability. The document also contains 157 sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some 158 LAN functions (e.g., mobile CPE or broadband dongles). 160 The recommendations listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and 161 3GPP EPS (Evolved Packet System) access. For EPS, PDN-Connection 162 term is used instead of PDP-Context. 164 This document identifies also some WLAN-related IPv6 recommendations. 165 Other non-3GPP accesses [TS.23402] are out of scope of this document. 167 This profile is a superset of that of the IPv6 profile for 3GPP 168 Cellular Hosts [RFC7066], which is in turn a superset of IPv6 Node 169 Requirements [RFC6434]. It targets cellular nodes, including GPRS, 170 EPC (Evolved Packet Core) and IEEE 802.11 networks, that require 171 features to ensure IPv4 service delivery over an IPv6-only transport 172 in addition to the base IPv6 service. Moreover, this profile covers 173 cellular CPEs that are used in various deployments to offer fixed- 174 like services. Recommendations inspired from real deployment 175 experiences (e.g., roaming) are included in this profile. Also, this 176 profile sketches recommendations for the sake of deterministic 177 behaviors of cellular devices when the same configuration information 178 is received over several channels. 180 For conflicting recommendations in [RFC7066] and [RFC6434] (e.g., 181 Neighbor Discovery Protocol), this profile adheres to [RFC7066]. 182 Indeed, the support of Neighbor Discovery Protocol is mandatory in 183 3GPP cellular environment as it is the only way to convey IPv6 prefix 184 towards the 3GPP cellular device. In particular, MTU (Maximum 185 Transmission Unit) communication via Router Advertisement must be 186 supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a standard MTU 187 setting. 189 This profile uses a stronger language for the support of Prefix 190 Delegation compared to [RFC7066]. The main motivation is that 191 cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to 192 fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with 193 the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for 194 an efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to cellular 195 hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 prefix and multi- 196 link subnet issues to be avoided. The support of this functionality 197 in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile 198 convergence. 200 2. Connectivity Recommendations 202 This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be 203 followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6. Both 204 dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 205 service continuity features are listed in this section because these 206 are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. 208 C_REC#1: In order to allow each operator to select their own 209 strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host 210 must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060]. 211 Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported. IPv4, 212 IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on 213 the cellular network configuration. 215 C_REC#2: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in 216 [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP- 217 Context type. In particular, the cellular host must 218 request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host 219 is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the 220 cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is 221 not aware of connectivity types requested by devices 222 connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities 223 as discussed in Section 4): 225 * If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by 226 the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, 227 then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 228 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must 229 initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to 230 the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point 231 Name). 233 * If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows 234 only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular 235 host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same 236 APN for the other IP address family. 238 The text above focuses on the specification part which 239 explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP- 240 Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to 241 avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular 242 devices. 244 C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the PCO (Protocol 245 Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 246 address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s). 248 In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the 249 cellular host about various services, including DNS 250 server information. It does not require any specific 251 protocol to be supported and it is already deployed in 252 IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information. 254 C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow 255 Templates (TFT) [TS.24008]. 257 Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to 258 couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a 259 dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be 260 provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic. 262 C_REC#5: If the cellular host receives the DNS information in 263 several channels for the same interface, the following 264 preference order must be followed: 266 1. PCO 268 2. RA 270 3. DHCPv6 272 C_REC#6: The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit 273 PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow 274 all supported PDP types. Note, C_REC#2 discusses the 275 default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s). 277 This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE 278 to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints 279 such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE), 280 (2) network conditions with regards to the support of 281 specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not 282 supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription 283 data, etc. 285 C_REC#7: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be 286 experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host 287 must be able to be configured with a home IP profile and a 288 roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to 289 limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when 290 out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) 291 and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases. 293 C_REC#8: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 294 deployment context, the cellular host should support a 295 method to locally construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses 296 [RFC6052]. A method to learn PREFIX64 should be supported 297 by the cellular host. 299 This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 300 referrals on IPv6-only access networks. 302 In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow 303 [RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream 304 PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the 305 cellular host should implement the method specified in 306 [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. 308 C_REC#9: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 309 deployment context, the cellular host should implement the 310 Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which 311 is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. 313 CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only 314 application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only 315 connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability 316 [RFC6146] in the core network. 318 The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is 319 defined in [RFC7335]. 321 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations 323 It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a WLAN interface in 324 addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to be 325 connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some 326 generic recommendations: 328 W_REC#1: IPv6 must be supported on the WLAN interface. In 329 particular, WLAN interface must behave properly when only 330 an IPv6 connectivity is provided. 332 Some tests revealed that IPv4 configuration is required 333 to enable IPv6-only connectivity. Indeed, some cellular 334 handsets can access a WLAN IPv6-only network by 335 configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the 336 device is connected to the network and the wlan0 337 interface got an IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address 338 can be deleted from the configuration. This avoids the 339 device to ask automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and 340 allows to connect to IPv6-only networks. Failing to 341 configure an IPv4 address on the interface must not 342 prohibit using IPv6 on the same interface. 344 W_REC#2: If the device receives the DNS information in several 345 channels for the same interface, the following preference 346 order must be followed: 348 1. RA 350 2. DHCPv6 352 3. Advanced Recommendations 354 This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill 355 requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. 357 A_REC#1: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001) 358 and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other 359 ROHC profiles may be supported. 361 Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much 362 as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce 363 bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having 364 bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. 366 "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP 367 packets and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress 368 RTCP packets are required for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) by 369 IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates 370 also the host must be able to apply the compression to 371 packets that are carried over the radio bearer dedicated 372 for the voice media. 374 A_REC#2: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887]. 376 The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery 377 consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also 378 gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections 379 to the cellular device. Indeed, because several 380 stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks 381 (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), PCP can be used by the 382 cellular host to control network-based NAT and Firewall 383 functions which will reduce per-application signaling 384 and save battery consumption. 386 According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular 387 device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds 388 (that is the default value in [RFC3948] for example) is 389 29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to 390 16 mA (2G)/24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to 391 40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G)/16 mA (3G) if the interval is 392 equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if 393 the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep- 394 alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA 395 (2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages 396 would be more severe if multiple applications are 397 issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.). 399 A_REC#3: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security 400 Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only 401 with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should 402 embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]). 404 This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in 405 [RFC6147]. 407 As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security- 408 aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 409 function locally. 411 Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully 412 validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to 413 construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use 414 of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034], [RFC4035]. Means to 415 configure or discover a PREFIX64 are required on the 416 cellular device as discussed in C_REC#8. 418 [RFC7051] discusses why a security-aware and validating 419 host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why 420 it has to be able to learn the proper PREFIX64(s). 422 A_REC#4: When the cellular host is dual-stack connected (i.e., 423 configured with an IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix), it should 424 support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over 425 connection established through translation devices (e.g., 426 NAT44 and NAT64). 428 When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a 429 dual-stack host must contact first its IPv6 DNS server. 431 Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in 432 [RFC6724] for source address selection. 434 A_REC#5: The cellular host should support Happy Eyeballs procedure 435 defined in [RFC6555]. 437 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 439 This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones, or 440 dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to 441 other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices 442 are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In addition to the 443 generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices 444 have to meet the recommendations listed below. 446 L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation 447 capabilities [RFC3633] and must support Prefix Exclude 448 Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in 449 [RFC6603]. Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting 450 Router. 452 Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an 453 alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based services 454 delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and 455 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for an efficient 456 mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to cellular 457 hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 458 prefix and multi-link subnet issues to be avoided. 460 In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using 461 DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two 462 prefixes: 464 (1) one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC mechanism 465 and 467 (2) another one delegated for LANs acquired during 468 Prefix Delegation operation. 470 Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both 471 the WAN (Wide Area Network) and the delegated prefix to 472 be aggregatable, so the subscriber can be identified 473 using a single prefix. 475 Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router 476 (GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure [RFC3633] compliancy 477 (e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the 478 WAN prefix out of the 1st half and the prefix to be 479 delegated to the terminal from the 2nd half). 481 Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be 482 available in some attached networks, L_REC#3 is strongly 483 recommended to accommodate early deployments. 485 L_REC#2: The cellular CPE must be compliant with the requirements 486 specified in [RFC6204]. 488 There are several deployments, particularly in emerging 489 countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide 490 broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with 491 mobile CPEs). 493 Note, even if RFC7084 obsoletes [RFC6204], this profile 494 does not require RFC7084 because IPv4 service continuity 495 techniques used in mobile networks are not the same as 496 in fixed networks. 498 L_REC#3: For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the 499 cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing 500 a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN/ 501 PGW (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces. 503 Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#1) is the target 504 solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but, 505 because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release 506 networks, a mean to share a /64 prefix is also 507 recommended [RFC7278]. 509 [RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is 510 not in use. 512 L_REC#4: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 513 deployment context, the cellular device should support the 514 Customer Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877]. 516 Various IP devices are likely to be connected to 517 cellular device, acting as a CPE. Some of these devices 518 can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only. 519 IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device does not 520 allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts 521 connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices. 523 In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated 524 from devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4 525 nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT 526 function in the cellular device. As elaborated in 527 Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4 528 applications to continue running over an IPv6-only host. 530 The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is 531 defined in [RFC7335]. 533 L_REC#5: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the 534 cellular device should relay that upstream MTU information 535 to the downstream attached LAN devices in RA. 537 Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more 538 harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where 539 end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU 540 size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels. 542 [TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358 543 octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP 544 layer fragmentation within the transport network between 545 the cellular device and the GGSN/PGW. 547 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations 549 The use of address family dependent APIs (Application Programming 550 Interfaces) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken 551 applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. This section 552 identifies a set of recommendations aiming to minimize broken 553 applications when the cellular device is attached to an IPv6 network. 555 APP_REC#1: Name resolution libraries must support both IPv4 and 556 IPv6. 558 In particular, the cellular host must support 559 [RFC3596]. 561 APP_REC#2: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor must be 562 independent of the underlying IP address family. 564 This means applications must be IP version agnostic. 566 APP_REC#3: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor that 567 use Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) must follow 568 [RFC3986]. For example, SIP applications must follow the 569 correction defined in [RFC5954]. 571 6. Security Considerations 573 The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are 574 to be taken into account. 576 Security-related considerations that apply when the cellular device 577 provides LAN features are specified in [RFC6092]. 579 The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which 580 preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using 581 [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when 582 compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host 583 is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address. 584 Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the 585 network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory 586 bodies in some countries. 588 Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see 589 Section 3). 591 7. IANA Considerations 593 This document does not require any action from IANA. 595 8. Acknowledgements 597 Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. 598 Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V. 599 Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, and T. 600 Kossut for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list. 602 Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the comments 603 during the IESG review. 605 Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, and F. 606 Baker for their detailed reviews and comments. 608 9. References 610 9.1. Normative References 612 [IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March 613 2011, . 616 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 617 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 619 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 620 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 621 October 2003. 623 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 624 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 625 December 2003. 627 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 628 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 629 3986, January 2005. 631 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 632 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 633 2010. 635 [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential 636 Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", 637 RFC 5954, August 2010. 639 [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 640 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 641 October 2010. 643 [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, 644 "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix 645 Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012. 647 [RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Arkko, J., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, 648 "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) 649 Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, November 2013. 651 [TS.23060] 652 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service 653 description; Stage 2", September 2011, 654 . 656 [TS.23401] 657 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 658 for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network 659 (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011, 660 . 662 [TS.24008] 663 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core 664 network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011, 665 . 667 9.2. Informative References 669 [Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy 670 Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks", 671 April 2007, . 674 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 675 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 676 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 677 June 2002. 679 [RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M. 680 Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC 681 3948, January 2005. 683 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 684 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 685 4033, March 2005. 687 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 688 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 689 RFC 4034, March 2005. 691 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 692 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 693 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 695 [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 696 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing 697 Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January 698 2011. 700 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 701 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 703 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 704 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 705 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 707 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 708 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 709 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 710 April 2011. 712 [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. 713 Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge 714 Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. 716 [RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node 717 Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011. 719 [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., 720 Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation 721 Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", 722 RFC 6459, January 2012. 724 [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with 725 Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. 727 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 728 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 729 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. 731 [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: 732 Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 733 6877, April 2013. 735 [RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. 736 Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 737 2013. 739 [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 740 the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC 741 7050, November 2013. 743 [RFC7051] Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of Solution 744 Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051, 745 November 2013. 747 [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque 748 Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address 749 Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, April 2014. 751 [RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the 752 Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014. 754 [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 755 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project 756 (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, June 757 2014. 759 [RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335, 760 August 2014. 762 [TS.23402] 763 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 764 September 2011, 765 . 767 Authors' Addresses 769 David Binet 770 France Telecom 771 Rennes 772 France 774 EMail: david.binet@orange.com 776 Mohamed Boucadair 777 France Telecom 778 Rennes 35000 779 France 781 EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 783 Ales Vizdal 784 Deutsche Telekom AG 786 EMail: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz 788 Gang Chen 789 China Mobile 791 EMail: phdgang@gmail.com 793 Nick Heatley 794 EE 795 The Point, 37 North Wharf Road, 796 London W2 1AG 797 U.K 799 EMail: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk 800 Ross Chandler 801 eircom | meteor 802 1HSQ 803 St. John's Road 804 Dublin 8 805 Ireland 807 EMail: ross@eircom.net