idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-16.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 (February 1, 2015) is 3364 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 6434 (Obsoleted by RFC 8504) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6555 (Obsoleted by RFC 8305) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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 Intended status: Informational France Telecom 5 Expires: August 5, 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 February 1, 2015 15 An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices 16 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-16 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 defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators recommend 24 in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack 25 wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 26 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 August 5, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 as perceived 86 by some 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 This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not 201 required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. 202 The support of the full set of features may not be required in some 203 deployment contexts. The authors believe that the support of a 204 subset of the features included in this protocol may lead to degraded 205 level of service in some deployment contexts. 207 2. Connectivity Recommendations 209 This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be 210 followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6. Both 211 dual-stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 212 service continuity features are listed in this section because these 213 are critical for Operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. 215 C_REC#1: In order to allow each operator to select their own 216 strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host 217 must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060]. 218 Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported. IPv4, 219 IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on 220 the cellular network configuration. 222 C_REC#2: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in 223 [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP- 224 Context type. In particular, the cellular host must 225 request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host 226 is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the 227 cellular host is dual-stack or when the cellular host is 228 not aware of connectivity types requested by devices 229 connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities 230 as discussed in Section 4): 232 * If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by 233 the network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, 234 then the cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 235 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must 236 initiate another PDP-Context activation in addition to 237 the one already activated for a given APN (Access Point 238 Name). 240 * If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows 241 only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular 242 host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same 243 APN for the other IP address family. 245 The text above focuses on the specification part which 246 explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP- 247 Context(s). Understanding this behavior is important to 248 avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular 249 devices. 251 C_REC#3: The cellular host must support the PCO (Protocol 252 Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 253 address(es) of the Recursive DNS server(s). 255 In-band signaling is a convenient method to inform the 256 cellular host about various services, including DNS 257 server information. It does not require any specific 258 protocol to be supported and it is already deployed in 259 IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information. 261 C_REC#4: The cellular host must support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow 262 Templates (TFT) [TS.24008]. 264 Traffic Flow Templates are employing a packet filter to 265 couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context. Thus a 266 dedicated PDP-Context and radio resources can be 267 provided by the cellular network for certain IP traffic. 269 C_REC#5: If the cellular host receives the DNS information in 270 several channels for the same interface, the following 271 preference order must be followed: 273 1. PCO 275 2. RA 277 3. DHCPv6 279 C_REC#6: The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit 280 PDP type(s) for a given APN. The default mode is to allow 281 all supported PDP types. Note, C_REC#2 discusses the 282 default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s). 284 This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE 285 to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints 286 such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE), 287 (2) network conditions with regards to the support of 288 specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not 289 supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription 290 data, etc. 292 C_REC#7: Because of potential operational deficiencies to be 293 experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host 294 must be able to be configured with a home IP profile and a 295 roaming IP profile. The aim of the roaming profile is to 296 limit the PDP type(s) requested by the cellular host when 297 out of the home network. Note that distinct PDP type(s) 298 and APN(s) can be configured for home and roaming cases. 300 C_REC#8: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 301 deployment context, the cellular host should support a 302 method to locally construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses 303 [RFC6052]. A method to learn PREFIX64 should be supported 304 by the cellular host. 306 This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 307 referrals on IPv6-only access networks. 309 In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts should follow 310 [RFC7225] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used by an upstream 311 PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not enabled, the 312 cellular host should implement the method specified in 313 [RFC7050] to retrieve the PREFIX64. 315 C_REC#9: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 316 deployment context, the cellular host should implement the 317 Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which 318 is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146]. 320 CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only 321 application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only 322 connectivity. CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability 323 [RFC6146] in the core network. 325 The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is 326 defined in [RFC7335]. 328 2.1. WLAN Connectivity Recommendations 330 It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a WLAN interface in 331 addition to their cellular interface. These hosts are likely to be 332 connected to private or public hotspots. Below are listed some 333 generic recommendations: 335 W_REC#1: IPv6 must be supported on the WLAN interface. In 336 particular, WLAN interface must behave properly when only 337 an IPv6 connectivity is provided. 339 Some tests revealed that IPv4 configuration is required 340 to enable IPv6-only connectivity. Indeed, some cellular 341 handsets can access a WLAN IPv6-only network by 342 configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the 343 device is connected to the network and the wlan0 344 interface got an IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address 345 can be deleted from the configuration. This avoids the 346 device to ask automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and 347 allows to connect to IPv6-only networks. Failing to 348 configure an IPv4 address on the interface must not 349 prohibit using IPv6 on the same interface. 351 W_REC#2: If the device receives the DNS information in several 352 channels for the same interface, the following preference 353 order must be followed: 355 1. RA 357 2. DHCPv6 359 3. Advanced Recommendations 361 This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill 362 requirements of critical services such as VoLTE. 364 A_REC#1: The cellular host must support ROHC RTP Profile (0x0001) 365 and ROHC UDP Profile (0x0002) for IPv6 ([RFC5795]). Other 366 ROHC profiles may be supported. 368 Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much 369 as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce 370 bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having 371 bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. 373 "RTP/UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0001) to compress RTP 374 packets and "UDP/IP" ROHC profile (0x0002) to compress 375 RTCP packets are required for Voice over LTE (VoLTE) by 376 IR.92.4.0 section 4.1 [IR92]. Note, [IR92] indicates 377 also the host must be able to apply the compression to 378 packets that are carried over the radio bearer dedicated 379 for the voice media. 381 A_REC#2: The cellular host should support PCP [RFC6887]. 383 The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery 384 consumption exacerbated by keepalive messages. PCP also 385 gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections 386 to the cellular device. Indeed, because several 387 stateful devices may be deployed in wireless networks 388 (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls), PCP can be used by the 389 cellular host to control network-based NAT and Firewall 390 functions which will reduce per-application signaling 391 and save battery consumption. 393 According to [Power], the consumption of a cellular 394 device with a keep-alive interval equal to 20 seconds 395 (that is the default value in [RFC3948] for example) is 396 29 mA (2G)/34 mA (3G). This consumption is reduced to 397 16 mA (2G)/24 mA (3G) when the interval is increased to 398 40 seconds, to 9.1 mA (2G)/16 mA (3G) if the interval is 399 equal to 150 seconds, and to 7.3 mA (2G)/14 mA (3G) if 400 the interval is equal to 180 seconds. When no keep- 401 alive is issued, the consumption would be 5.2 mA 402 (2G)/6.1 mA (3G). The impact of keepalive messages 403 would be more severe if multiple applications are 404 issuing those messages (e.g., SIP, IPsec, etc.). 406 A_REC#3: In order for host-based validation of DNS Security 407 Extensions (DNSSEC) to continue to function in an IPv6-only 408 with NAT64 deployment context, the cellular host should 409 embed a DNS64 function ([RFC6147]). 411 This is called "DNS64 in stub-resolver mode" in 412 [RFC6147]. 414 As discussed in Section 5.5 of [RFC6147], a security- 415 aware and validating host has to perform the DNS64 416 function locally. 418 Because synthetic AAAA records cannot be successfully 419 validated in a host, learning the PREFIX64 used to 420 construct IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses allows the use 421 of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034], [RFC4035]. Means to 422 configure or discover a PREFIX64 are required on the 423 cellular device as discussed in C_REC#8. 425 [RFC7051] discusses why a security-aware and validating 426 host has to perform the DNS64 function locally and why 427 it has to be able to learn the proper PREFIX64(s). 429 A_REC#4: When the cellular host is dual-stack connected (i.e., 430 configured with an IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix), it should 431 support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over 432 connection established through translation devices (e.g., 433 NAT44 and NAT64). 435 When both IPv4 and IPv6 DNS servers are configured, a 436 dual-stack host must contact first its IPv6 DNS server. 438 Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in 439 [RFC6724] for source address selection. 441 A_REC#5: The cellular host should support Happy Eyeballs procedure 442 defined in [RFC6555]. 444 4. Recommendations for Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities 446 This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones, or 447 dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to 448 other devices connected to them. In such case, all connected devices 449 are sharing the same 2G, 3G or LTE connection. In addition to the 450 generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices 451 have to meet the recommendations listed below. 453 L_REC#1: The cellular device must support Prefix Delegation 454 capabilities [RFC3633] and must support Prefix Exclude 455 Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in 456 [RFC6603]. Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting 457 Router. 459 Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an 460 alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based services 461 delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and 462 3GPP data dongles. There is a need for an efficient 463 mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to cellular 464 hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64 465 prefix and multi-link subnet issues to be avoided. 467 In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using 468 DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two 469 prefixes: 471 (1) one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC mechanism 472 and 473 (2) another one delegated for LANs acquired during 474 Prefix Delegation operation. 476 Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both 477 the WAN (Wide Area Network) and the delegated prefix to 478 be aggregatable, so the subscriber can be identified 479 using a single prefix. 481 Without the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router 482 (GGSN/PGW) will have to ensure [RFC3633] compliancy 483 (e.g., halving the delegated prefix and assigning the 484 WAN prefix out of the 1st half and the prefix to be 485 delegated to the terminal from the 2nd half). 487 Because Prefix Delegation capabilities may not be 488 available in some attached networks, L_REC#3 is strongly 489 recommended to accommodate early deployments. 491 L_REC#2: The cellular CPE must be compliant with the requirements 492 specified in [RFC7084]. 494 There are several deployments, particularly in emerging 495 countries, that relies on mobile networks to provide 496 broadband services (e.g., customers are provided with 497 mobile CPEs). 499 Note, this profile does not require IPv4 service 500 continuity techniques listed in [RFC7084] because those 501 are specific to fixed networks. IPv4 service continuity 502 techniques specific to the mobile networks are included 503 in this profile. 505 L_REC#3: For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the 506 cellular device should support [RFC7278] to enable sharing 507 a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN/ 508 PGW (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces. 510 Prefix Delegation (refer to L_REC#1) is the target 511 solution for distributing prefixes in the LAN side but, 512 because the device may attach to earlier 3GPP release 513 networks, a mean to share a /64 prefix is also 514 recommended [RFC7278]. 516 [RFC7278] must be invoked only if Prefix Delegation is 517 not in use. 519 L_REC#4: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only 520 deployment context, the cellular device should support the 521 Customer Side Translator (CLAT) [RFC6877]. 523 Various IP devices are likely to be connected to 524 cellular device, acting as a CPE. Some of these devices 525 can be dual-stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only. 526 IPv6-only connectivity for cellular device does not 527 allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts 528 connected on the LAN segment of cellular devices. 530 In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated 531 from devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4 532 nodes, a solution consists in integrating the CLAT 533 function in the cellular device. As elaborated in 534 Section 2, the CLAT function allows also IPv4 535 applications to continue running over an IPv6-only host. 537 The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is 538 defined in [RFC7335]. 540 L_REC#5: If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the 541 cellular device should relay that upstream MTU information 542 to the downstream attached LAN devices in RA. 544 Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more 545 harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where 546 end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU 547 size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels. 549 [TS.23060] indicates providing a link MTU value of 1358 550 octets to the 3GPP cellular device will prevent the IP 551 layer fragmentation within the transport network between 552 the cellular device and the GGSN/PGW. 554 5. APIs & Applications Recommendations 556 The use of address family dependent APIs (Application Programming 557 Interfaces) or hard-coded IPv4 address literals may lead to broken 558 applications when IPv6 connectivity is in use. This section 559 identifies a set of recommendations aiming to minimize broken 560 applications when the cellular device is attached to an IPv6 network. 562 APP_REC#1: Name resolution libraries must support both IPv4 and 563 IPv6. 565 In particular, the cellular host must support 566 [RFC3596]. 568 APP_REC#2: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor must be 569 independent of the underlying IP address family. 571 This means applications must be IP version agnostic. 573 APP_REC#3: Applications provided by the mobile device vendor that 574 use Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) must follow 575 [RFC3986] and its updates. For example, SIP applications 576 must follow the correction defined in [RFC5954]. 578 6. Security Considerations 580 The security considerations identified in [RFC7066] and [RFC6459] are 581 to be taken into account. 583 In the case of cellular devices that provide LAN features, compliance 584 with L_REC#2 entails compliance with [RFC7084], which in turn 585 recommends compliance with Recommended Simple Security Capabilities 586 in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 587 Internet Service [RFC6092]. Therefore, the security considerations 588 in Section 6 of [RFC6092] are relevant. In particular, it bears 589 repeating here that the true impact of stateful filtering may be a 590 reduction in security, and that IETF make no statement, expressed or 591 implied, as to whether using the capabilities described in any of 592 these documents ultimately improves security for any individual users 593 or for the Internet community as a whole. 595 The cellular host must be able to generate IPv6 addresses which 596 preserve privacy. The activation of privacy extension (e.g., using 597 [RFC7217]) makes it more difficult to track a host over time when 598 compared to using a permanent Interface Identifier. Tracking a host 599 is still possible based on the first 64 bits of the IPv6 address. 600 Means to prevent against such tracking issues may be enabled in the 601 network side. Note, privacy extensions are required by regulatory 602 bodies in some countries. 604 Host-based validation of DNSSEC is discussed in A_REC#3 (see 605 Section 3). 607 7. IANA Considerations 609 This document does not require any action from IANA. 611 8. Acknowledgements 613 Many thanks to C. Byrne, H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. 614 Lemon, B. Sarikaya, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers, V. 616 Kuarsingh, E. Kline, S. Josefsson, A. Baryun, J. Woodyatt, T. 617 Kossut, and B. Stark for the discussion in the v6ops mailing list. 619 Thanks to A. Farrel, B. Haberman and K. Moriarty for the comments 620 during the IESG review. 622 Special thanks to T. Savolainen, J. Korhonen, J. Jaeggli, and F. 623 Baker for their detailed reviews and comments. 625 9. References 627 9.1. Normative References 629 [IR92] GSMA, "IR.92.V4.0 - IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", March 630 2011, . 633 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 634 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 636 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 637 "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, 638 October 2003. 640 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 641 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 642 December 2003. 644 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 645 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 646 3986, January 2005. 648 [RFC5795] Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust 649 Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795, March 650 2010. 652 [RFC5954] Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential 653 Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261", 654 RFC 5954, August 2010. 656 [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 657 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 658 October 2010. 660 [RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, 661 "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix 662 Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012. 664 [RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Arkko, J., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan, 665 "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) 666 Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, November 2013. 668 [TS.23060] 669 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service 670 description; Stage 2", September 2011, 671 . 673 [TS.23401] 674 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements 675 for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network 676 (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011, 677 . 679 [TS.24008] 680 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core 681 network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011, 682 . 684 9.2. Informative References 686 [Power] Haverinen, H., Siren, J., and P. Eronen, "Energy 687 Consumption of Always-On Applications in WCDMA Networks", 688 April 2007, . 691 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 692 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 693 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 694 June 2002. 696 [RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M. 697 Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets", RFC 698 3948, January 2005. 700 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 701 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 702 4033, March 2005. 704 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 705 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 706 RFC 4034, March 2005. 708 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 709 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 710 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 712 [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 713 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing 714 Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January 715 2011. 717 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 718 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 720 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 721 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 722 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 724 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 725 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 726 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 727 April 2011. 729 [RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node 730 Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011. 732 [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., 733 Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation 734 Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", 735 RFC 6459, January 2012. 737 [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with 738 Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. 740 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 741 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 742 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. 744 [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: 745 Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 746 6877, April 2013. 748 [RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. 749 Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 750 2013. 752 [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 753 the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC 754 7050, November 2013. 756 [RFC7051] Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of Solution 757 Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix", RFC 7051, 758 November 2013. 760 [RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic 761 Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084, 762 November 2013. 764 [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque 765 Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address 766 Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, April 2014. 768 [RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the 769 Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014. 771 [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 772 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project 773 (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, June 774 2014. 776 [RFC7335] Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335, 777 August 2014. 779 [TS.23402] 780 3GPP, "Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", 781 September 2011, 782 . 784 Authors' Addresses 786 David Binet 787 France Telecom 788 Rennes 789 France 791 EMail: david.binet@orange.com 793 Mohamed Boucadair 794 France Telecom 795 Rennes 35000 796 France 798 EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 800 Ales Vizdal 801 Deutsche Telekom AG 803 EMail: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz 804 Gang Chen 805 China Mobile 807 EMail: phdgang@gmail.com 809 Nick Heatley 810 EE 811 The Point, 37 North Wharf Road, 812 London W2 1AG 813 U.K 815 EMail: nick.heatley@ee.co.uk 817 Ross Chandler 818 eircom | meteor 819 1HSQ 820 St. John's Road 821 Dublin 8 822 Ireland 824 EMail: ross@eircom.net