Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Cellular Hosts
draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors David Binet  , Mohamed Boucadair  , Vizdal Ales  , Cameron Byrne 
Last updated 2012-09-24
Replaced by draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
Stream (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
V6OPS Working Group                                             D. Binet
Internet-Draft                                              M. Boucadair
Updates: 3316 (if approved)                               France Telecom
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Vizdal
Expires: March 28, 2013                              Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                                C. Byrne
                                                                T-Mobile
                                                      September 24, 2012

         Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Cellular Hosts
         draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-02

Abstract

   This document lists a set of IPv6-related requirements to be
   supported by cellular hosts.

   This document updates RFC3316.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 28, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Connectivity Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  WiFi Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Advanced Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  APIs & Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

1.  Introduction

   [RFC3316] lists a set of features to be supported by cellular hosts
   to connect to 3GPP cellular networks.  Since the publication of that
   document, new functions have been specified within 3GPP and IETF
   while others have been updated.

   Moreover, in light of recent IPv6 production deployments, additional
   features to ease IPv6-only deployments while continuing accessing to
   IPv4-only service are to be considered.

   This document updates [RFC3316] with new functionalities to be
   supported by cellular hosts.  Note [RFC3316] considered only GPRS and
   UMTS networks; this document also considers EPS (Evolved Packet
   System).

   A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
   in [RFC6459].

   This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6459].

   PREFIX64 denotes an IPv6 prefix used to build IPv4-converted IPv6
   addresses [RFC6052].

1.1.  Scope

   Various types of nodes are likely to be connected to 3GPP networks
   and will require specific functions.  Indeed, a 3GPP network can be
   used to connect a phone, a CPE, machine-to-machine (M2M) device, etc.
   Because of the diversity of terminals which may connect to 3GPP
   networks, this document provides first some generic IPv6
   functionalities which are valid for any node to be directly connected
   to 3GPP networks, whatever its function or whatever the services
   (e.g., DNS, SIP) it supports.  Then, dedicated sections are included
   to cover specific functionalities to be supported by some type of
   devices (e.g., smartphones, devices providing some LAN functions
   (mobile CPE or broadband dongles), M2M devices).

   M2M devices specifications are not considered in the first version of
   this document.

   The requirements listed below are valid for both 3GPP GPRS and 3GPP
   EPS access.  For EPS, "PDN type" terminology is used instead of "PDP
   context ".

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

2.  Connectivity Requirements

   REQ#1:  The cellular host MUST support IPv6 addressing architecture
      ([RFC4291]).  For address representation, [RFC5952] MUST be
      supported.

   REQ#2:  The cellular host MUST support both IPv6 PDP and IPv4v6 PDP
      contexts

         This allows each operator to select its own strategy regarding
         IPv6 introduction.  Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP contexts MUST be
         supported in addition to IPv4 PDP context.  IPv4, IPv6 or
         IPv4v6 PDP-Context request accept depends on the mobile network
         support and configuration.

   REQ#3:  The cellular host MUST comply with the behavior defined in
      [TS.23060] and [TS.24008] in terms of requested PDP context type.
      In particular the cellular host MUST request an IPv6 PDP context
      if the cellular host is IPv6-only and requesting an IPv4v6 PDP
      context if the cellular host is dual stack or when the cellular
      host is not aware of connectivity types requested by devices
      connected to it (e.g., cellular host with LAN capabilities):

      *  If the requested PDP context IPv4v6 is not supported but IPv4
         and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, the cellular host is configured
         with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix.  It MAY initiate
         another PDP request than the one already activated for a given
         APN.

      *  If the requested PDP type and subscription data allows only one
         IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular host MUST NOT
         request a second PDP context to the same APN for the other IP
         address family.

   REQ#4:  The cellular host MUST support the PCO (Protocol
      Configuration Options) [TS.24008] to retrieve the IPv6 address(es)
      of the Recursive DNS server(s).

         In band signaling is a convenient method to inform the cellular
         host about various services, including DNS server information.
         It does not require any specific protocol to be supported and
         it is already deployed in IPv4 cellular networks to convey such
         DNS information.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   REQ#5:  The cellular host MUST support IPv6 aware Traffic Flow
      Templates (TFT) [TS.24008].

   REQ#6:  The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
      [RFC6106] for DNS configuration.

         The support of this function allows for consistent method to
         inform cellular host about DNS recursive server across various
         access network types.  The cellular host SHOULD support RA-
         based DNS information discovery.

   REQ#7:  The cellular host SHOULD embed a DHCPv6 client [RFC3736]

         In order to get some consistent way to inform cellular host
         about DNS recursive server across various access networks and
         in case [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD
         retrieving DNS information using stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736].

   REQ#8:  The cellular host SHOULD support a method to locally
      construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052].

         This allows to solve issues related to application which uses
         referral with IPv4 literals.

   REQ#9:  Particularly, the cellular host SHOULD support Customer Side
      Translator function (CLAT, [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]) function
      which is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146].

         CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only
         application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only PDP CLAT
         function requires a NAT64 capability [RFC6146] in the core
         network.

   REQ#10:  The cellular device MAY embed a BIH function [RFC6535]
      facilitating the communication between IPv4 application and IPv6
      server.

   REQ#11:  The cellular device SHOULD embed a DNS64 function [RFC6147].

         This allows to be compatible with DNSSEC.  A means to configure
         PREFIX64 is required to be supported.

   REQ#12:  The cellular host SHOULD support PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].

         The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery
         consumption exacerbated b keepalive messages and also to allow
         for successful incoming connections.  Indeed, because several
         stateful devices may be enabled in mobile networks (e.g., NAT,

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

         Firewalls), PCP can be used by the cellular host to control and
         to retrieve lifetime of NAT bindings, to ease NAT and Firewall
         traversal for applications embedding IP address, to reduce
         keep-alive messages and inherently save battery consumption.

   REQ#13:  A method to learn PREFIX64 SHOULD be supported by cellular
      hosts.

         The cellular host SHOULD implement the method specified in
         [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] to retrieve the
         PREFIX64.

   REQ#14:  The cellular host SHOULD support means to prefer native IPv6
      connection instead of crossing IPv4/IPv6 interworking devices or
      NAT44 when the cellular host gets dual stack connectivity.

         Cellular hosts SHOULD follow the procedure specified in
         [RFC6724] for address source selection.

         Some potential issues are discussed in
         [I-D.ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension] for MIFed devices.

   REQ#15:  The cellular host SHOULD support the procedure defined in
      [RFC6555].

   REQ#16:  The cellular host MUST support ICMPv6 ([RFC4443])

         The base protocol MUST be fully implemented by every IPv6 node
         as indicated in Section 2 of [RFC4443].

   REQ#17:  The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
      ([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]).

   REQ#18:  The cellular host MUST support Stateless Address Auto
      Configuration ([RFC4862]) apart from the exceptions noted in
      [TS.23060] (3G) and [TS.23401] (LTE):

         Stateless mode is the only way to configure a cellular host.
         The GGSN must allocate a prefix that is unique within its scope
         to each primary PDP context.

         The cellular host MUST use the interface identifier sent in PDP
         Context Accept message to configure its link local address.
         The cellular host may use a different Interface Identifiers to
         configure its global addresses.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   REQ#19:  The cellular host SHOULD NOT perform Duplicate Address
      Detection (DAD) for these Global IPv6 addresses (as the GGSN or
      PDN-GW must not configure any IPv6 addresses using the prefix
      allocated to the cellular host).

2.1.  WiFi Connectivity

   It is more and more common that cellular hosts have some Wi-Fi
   interfaces in addition to cellular interface.  These hosts are likely
   to be connected to private or public hotspots.  Below are listed some
   generic requirements:

   REQ#20:  IPv6 MUST be supported on the Wi-Fi interface.

   REQ#21:  DHCPv6 client SHOULD be supported on Wi-Fi interface
      ([RFC3736])

   REQ#22:  Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
      for DNS configuration ([RFC6106])

3.  Advanced Requirements

   REQ#23:  The cellular host SHOULD support the Privacy Extensions for
      Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 ([RFC4941])

         The activation of privacy extension makes it hard to track a
         host compared to using the same interface identifier over the
         time.  [RFC4941] does not require any DAD mechanism to be
         activated as the GGSN (or PDN-GW) MUST NOT configure any global
         address based on the prefix allocated to the cellular host.

   REQ#24:  The cellular host SHOULD support ROHC for IPv6 ([RFC5795])

         Bandwidth in mobile environments must be optimized as much as
         possible.  ROHC provides a solution to reduce bandwidth
         consumption and to reduce the impact of having bigger header in
         IPv6 compared to IPv4.

   REQ#25:  The cellular host SHOULD support IPv6 Router Advertisement
      Flags Options ([RFC5175]).

         Some flags are used by GGSN (or PDN-GW) to inform cellular
         hosts about autoconfiguration process.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   REQ#26:  The cellular host SHOULD support Path MTU discovery
      ([RFC1981]).  If MTU used by cellular hosts is larger than 1280
      bytes, they can rely on Path MTU discovery function to discover
      real path MTU.

   REQ#27:  The cellular host SHOULD support IPsec version 2 tunnel mode
      (IKE2, [RFC5996]).

   REQ#28:  The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement
      extension for communicating default router preferences and more-
      specific routes [RFC4191].

   REQ#29:  The cellular host MAY support [RFC5555].

4.  Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities

   Cellular devices may provide some IP service access to other devices
   connected to them.  In such case, all connected devices are sharing
   the same GPRS, UMTS or EPS connection.  These cellular devices can be
   a CPE or specific cellular hosts commercialized to set up rapidly
   LANs in various environment, or it can also be a smartphone or a
   dongles with tethering features.  In addition to the generic
   requirements listed in Section 2, these hosts will have to embed
   specific functions in order to allow other IP-enabled devices to get
   IP connectivity services through these cellular devices.

   Prefix delegation which allows to allocate a shorter prefix to a
   cellular host is only available since 3GPP Release 10.  For
   deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the cellular
   device MUST support a mechanism (e.g., ND Proxy function [RFC4389])
   to enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards the
   GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.  Note, ND Proxy
   [RFC4389] has some limitations regarding Duplicate Address Detection
   and multilink subnet requirements but it provides IPv6 connectivity
   in some basic scenarios.

   REQ#30:  The cellular device MUST support Prefix Delegation
      capabilities [RFC3633] and MUST support Prefix Exclude Option for
      DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation as defined in [RFC6603].
      Particularly, it MUST behave as a Requesting Router.

         Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative
         to fixed networks for home services delivery; especially with
         the advent of smartphones and dongles.  There is a need for an
         efficient mechanism to assign shorter prefix than /64 to
         cellular hosts so that each LAN segment can get its own /64
         prefix and multilink subnet issues to be avoided.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

         In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using DHCPv6,
         the cellular device will be configured with two prefixes: (1)
         one for 3GPP link allocated using SLAAC mechanism and (2)
         another one delegated for LANs acquired during Prefix
         Delegation operation.  Note that the 3GPP network architecture
         requires both the WAN and the Delegated Prefix to be
         aggregatable, so the subscriber can be identified using a
         single prefix.

         Without Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating router (GGSN/
         PDN-GW) will have to assure [RFC3633] compliancy (e.g., halving
         the Delegated prefix and assigning the WAN prefix out of the
         1st half and the prefix to be delegated to the terminal from
         the 2nd half).

   REQ#31:  The cellular device SHOULD support Customer Side Translator
      (CLAT) [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat].

         Various IP devices are likely to be connected to cellular
         device, acting as a CPE.  Some of these devices can be dual
         stack, others are IPv6-only or IPv4-only.  IPv6-only
         connectivity for cellular device does not allow IPv4-only
         sessions to be established for hosts connected on LAN segment
         of cellular devices.

         In order to allow IPv4 sessions establishment initiated from
         devices located on LAN segment side and target IPv4 nodes, a
         solution consists in integrating the CLAT function in the
         cellular device.  As elaborated in Section 2, the CLAT function
         allows also IPv4 applications to continue running over an IPv6-
         only host.

   REQ#32:  The cellular device MUST be compliant with CPE requirements
      specified in [RFC6204].

         [DISCUSSION NOTE: Check whether a reference to
         [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis] is to be added too.]

5.  APIs & Applications

   REQ#33:  Name resolution libraries MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6.

   REQ#34:  Applications MUST be independent of the underlying IP
      address family.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   REQ#35:  Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986].  For example,
      SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in [RFC5954].

6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations identified in [RFC3316] are to be taken into
   account.

   REQ#36:  If the cellular device provides LAN features, it SHOULD be
      compliant with security requirements specified in [RFC6092].

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any action from IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to H. Soliman, H. Singh, L. Colliti, T. Lemon, B.
   Sarikaya, J. Korhonen and G. Chen for the discussion in the v6ops
   mailing list.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

   [RFC5175]  Haberman, B. and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Router Advertisement
              Flags Option", RFC 5175, March 2008.

   [RFC5795]  Sandlund, K., Pelletier, G., and L-E. Jonsson, "The RObust
              Header Compression (ROHC) Framework", RFC 5795,
              March 2010.

   [RFC5942]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
              Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
              Prefixes", RFC 5942, July 2010.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.

   [RFC5954]  Gurbani, V., Carpenter, B., and B. Tate, "Essential
              Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261",
              RFC 5954, August 2010.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 5996, September 2010.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              October 2010.

   [RFC6106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 6106, November 2010.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

   [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              April 2011.

   [RFC6535]  Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
              Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.

   [RFC6603]  Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan,
              "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
              Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic]
              Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
              IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
              draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-11 (work in
              progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension]
              Chen, G., Williams, C., Wing, D., and A. Yourtchenko,
              "Happy Eyeballs Extension for Multiple Interfaces",
              draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-00 (work in
              progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
              Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-ietf-pcp-base-27 (work in progress), September 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
              Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

              draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis]
              Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, "Advanced Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-01 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

   [RFC3316]  Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and J.
              Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some
              Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts", RFC 3316,
              April 2003.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.

   [RFC5555]  Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
              Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
              Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
              Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              January 2011.

   [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.

   [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T.,
              Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
              Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
              RFC 6459, January 2012.

   [TS.23060]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
              description; Stage 2", September 2011.

   [TS.23401]
              3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
              for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
              (E-UTRAN) access", September 2011.

   [TS.24008]
              3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
              network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011.

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts          September 2012

Authors' Addresses

   David Binet
   France Telecom
   Rennes,
   France

   Email: david.binet@orange.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes,   35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

   Ales Vizdal
   Deutsche Telekom AG

   Phone:
   Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz
   URI:

   Cameron Byrne
   T-Mobile
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com

Binet, et al.            Expires March 28, 2013                [Page 14]