IPv6 Roaming Behavior Analysis
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7445.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gang Chen , DENG Hui , Dave Michaud , Jouni Korhonen , Mohamed Boucadair , Vizdal Ales | ||
| Last updated | 2014-07-04 | ||
| Replaces | draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-05)
by Peter Yee
Ready w/issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
by Peter Yee
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7445 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-01
Network Working Group G. Chen
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: January 5, 2015 D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
J. Korhonen
Renesas Mobile
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG
July 4, 2014
IPv6 Roaming Behavior Analysis
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-01
Abstract
This document identifies a set of failure cases encountered by an
IPv6-enabled IPv6 customers in roaming scenarios. The investigations
on those failed cases reveal the causes in order to notice improper
configurations, equipment's incomplete functions or inconsistent IPv6
introduction strategy.
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 January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Roaming Architecture Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Roaming Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Failure Case in Attachment Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Failure Cases in PDP/PDN Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Case 1: Splitting Dual-stack Bearer . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Case 2: Lack of IPv6 support in applications . . . . . . 8
5.3. Case 3: Fallback Incapability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Case 4: 464xlat Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Many Mobile Operators deployed or are in a per-deployment stage of
IPv6 in their operational networks. Customers will be delivered with
IPv6 connectivity if their User Equipment (UE) are IPv6-compliant. A
detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
in [RFC6459]. Operators may adopt various approaches to deploy IPv6
in mobile networks, for example the solutions described in
[TR23.975]). Dual-stack or IPv6 single-stack has been selected
depending on network's conditions. It has been observed that a
mobile subscriber roaming around different operator's areas may
experience service degradations or interruptions due to the
inconsistent configurations and incomplete functions on the networks
nodes.
This memo intends to document the observed failed cases and analyze
the causes.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
2. Roaming Architecture Description
The roaming process has been occurred in the following scenarios:
o International roaming: a mobile UE may entry a visited network,
where different Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identity is
used. UEs could, either in an automatic mode or a manual mode,
attach to the visited PLMN.
o Intra-PLMN mobility: a UE moves to a visited network as that of
the Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN). However, the
subscriber profiles may not be stored in the area. Once the
subscriber attached to the network, the subscriber profile should
be extracted from the home network for the network attachment.
When a UE is turned on or is transferred via a handover to a visited
network, the mobile device will scan all radio channels and find
available Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs) to attach. Serving
GPRS Support Node (SGSN) or Mobility Management Entity (MME) in the
visited networks must contact the Home Location Register(HLR) or Home
Subscriber Server(HSS) and obtain the subscriber profile. Once the
authentication and registration process is completed, the Packet Data
Protocol (PDP) or Packet Data Networks (PDN) activation and traffic
flows may be operated differently according to the subscriber profile
stored in HLR or HSS. Two modes have been shown at the figure to
illustrate, that are "Home routed traffic" (Figure 1) and "Local
breakout" (Figure 2).
+---------------------------------+ +------------------------+
|Visited Network | |Home Network |
| +----+ +--------+ | | +--------+ Traffic Flow
| | UE |==========>|SGSN/MME|======================>|GGSN/PGW|============>
| +----+ +--------+ | Signaling | +--------+ |
| |-------------------------->+--------+ |
| | | |HLR/HSS | |
| | | +--------+ |
+---------------------------------+ +------------------------+
Figure 1: Home Routed Traffic
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
+---------------------------------+ +------------------------+
|Visited Network | |Home Network |
| +----+ +--------+ | Signaling | +--------+ |
| | UE |==========>|SGSN/MME|---------------------->|HLR/HSS | |
| +----+ +--------+ | | +--------+ |
| || | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| |GGSN/PGW| | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| Traffic Flow || | | |
+-----------------------||--------+ +------------------------+
\/
Figure 2: Local Breadkout
In the home routed mode, subscribers will activate the PDP/PDN
context and get address from the home network. All traffic would be
routed back to the home networks. It's likely most cases for
international roaming of Internet data services to facilitate the
charging process between two operators.
In the local breakout mode, the subscriber address will be assigned
from the visited network. The traffic flow is directly offloaded
locally at a network node close to that device's point of attachment
in the visited networks. Therefore, more efficient route is
achieved. The international roaming of IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)
based services, e.g. Voice over LTE (VoLTE)[IR.92] , is claimed to
select the local breakout mode in [IR.65]. Data service roaming
across different areas within a operator network could use local
breakout mode in order to get efficient traffic route. The local
breakout mode could be also applied to an operators alliance for
international roaming of data service. EU Roaming Regulation
III[EU-Roaming-III] involves local breakout mode allowing european
subscribers roaming in european 2G/3G networks can choose to have
their Internet data routed directly to the Internet from their
current VPLMN. The following enumerates the more specific
configuration considerations.
o Operators may add the APN-OI-Replacement flag defined in 3GPP
[TS29.272] into user's subscription-data. The visited network
indicates a local domain name to replace the user requested Access
Point Name (APN). As the consequence, the traffic would be
steered to the visited network. Those functions are normally
deployed for the Intra-PLMN mobility cases.
o Operators could also configure VPLMN-Dynamic-Address-Allowed
flag[TS29.272] in the user profile to enable local breakout mode
in Visited Public Land Mobile Networks (VPLMNs).
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
o 3GPP specified Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO)
function[TS23.401] since Release 10 in order to get efficient
route paths. It enables an operator to offload certain types of
traffic at a network node close to that device's point of
attachment to the access network.
o GSMA has defined RAVEL[IR.65] as IMS international roaming
architecture. Local breakout mode has been adopted for the
roaming architecture.
3. Roaming Scenario
There are two stages happened when a subscriber roams to a visited
network and intends to start data services.
o Nework attachment: it's occurred once the subsriber enters a
visited network. During an attachment, the visited network should
authenticate the subsriber and make location update to the HSS/HLR
in the home network of the subsriber. Accordingly, the subscriber
profile is offered from the HSS/HLR. The subscriber profile
contains the allowed Access Point Names (APN), allowed PDP/PDN
Types and rules regarding the routing of data sessions (i.e. home
routed or local breakout mode) [TS29.272]. SGSN/MME in the
visited network could use those informaiton to facilitate the
subsequent PDP/PDN session creation.
o PDP/PDN context creation: it's occurred after the subsriber makes
a sucessful attachment. It's worth nothing that this stage is
integrated with the attachment stage in the case of 4G, but a
seperated process in 2/3G. 3GPP specifies three types of Packet
Data Protocol (PDP)/Packet Data Networks (PDN) to describe
connections, i.e., PDP/PDN Type IPv4, PDP/PDN Type IPv6 and PDP/
PDN Type IPv4v6. When a subsriber creates a data session, a user
device is configured to request a particular PDP/PDN Type. The
allowed PDP/PDN types for the subscriber are learned from the
attachment stage. Hence, SGSN/MME could initiate PDP/PDN request
to GGSN/PGW if the subscription profile is allowed.
The failures are likely happened in both stages due to an incompliant
implementation or mismatch between the subscriber requested and the
visited network capability. The failures in the attachment stage is
independent with home routed and local breakout mode, while most
failure cases in the PDP/PDN context creation stage are appeared in
the local breakout cases. Section 4 and 5 make further descriptions
for each cases. The below table lists the several cases regarding
the PDP/PDN creation stage.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
| UE request | PDN/PDP IP Type |Local breakout|
| | permitted | |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
| IPv4v6 | IPv4 or IPv6 |Failure case 1|
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
| IPv4v6 | IPv6 |Failure case 2|
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
| IPv6 | IPv4 |Failure case 3|
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
| IPv6 | IPv6 |Failure case 4|
| with 464xlat| without NAT64 | |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+
Table 1: Roaming Scenario Descriptions
4. Failure Case in Attachment Stage
3GPP specified PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 in order to allow a UE requesting
both IPv4 and IPv6 within a single PDP/PDN request. This feature is
stored as a part of subscription data for a subscriber in the HLR/
HSS. PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 is introduced since the inception of
Evolved Packet System (EPS) in 4G network. The nodes in 4G networks
should no issues with the handling of this PDN type. However, it's
of varing supports in 2/3G networks denpending on Serving GPRS
Support Node (SGSN) software version. In theory, S4-SGSN (i.e., the
SGSN with S4 interface) support the PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 since
Release8 and Gn-SGSN (i.e., the SGSN with Gn interface) support it
since Release 9. In most cases, operators normally use Gn-SGSN to
connect either GGSN in 3G or Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) in 4G.
The MAP (Mobile Application Part) protocol, as defined in 3GPP
[TS29.002], is used over the Gr interface between SGSN and HLR. The
MAP Information Element (IE) "ext-pdp-Type" contains the IPv4v6 PDP
Type is conveyed to SGSN from HLR within the Insert Subscriber Data
(ISD) MAP operation. If the SGSN does not support the IPv4v6 PDP
Type, it will not support the "ext-pdp-Type" IE and consequently must
silently discard that IE and continue processing of the rest of the
ISD MAP message. The issue we observe is that multiple SGSNs will be
unable to correctly process a subscriber data received in the Insert
Subscriber Data procedure[TS23.060]. As a consequence , it will
likely refuse the subscriber attach request, which is erroneous
behaviour as they are not 3GPP compliant.
Operators may have to remove the PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 from HLR/HSS in
the home network, that will restrict UEs only initiates IPv4 PDP or
IPv6 PDP activation. In order to avoid this situation, operators
should make a comprehensive roaming agreement to support IPv6 and
ensure that aligns with GSMA document, e.g [IR.33], [IR.88] and
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
[IR.21]. The agreement requires visited operators to get necessary
patch on all SGSN nodes to support PDP/PDN type IPv4v6.
There are some specific implementation in HLS/HSS of home network as
an alternative solution. Once the HLR/HSS receives an Update
Location message from visited SGSN known to not support the PDP type
IPv4v6, only the subscription data with PDP/PDN type IPv4 will be
sent to SGSN in the Insert Subscriber Data procedure. It guarantee
the user profile could compatible with visited SGSN/MME capability.
5. Failure Cases in PDP/PDN Creation
Once a subscriber succeed in the attach stage, IP allocation process
is taken place to allocate IP addresses to the subscriber. This
section has summarized several failures in the break-out cases.
5.1. Case 1: Splitting Dual-stack Bearer
Dual-stack capability can be provided using separate PDP/PDN
activations. That means only a single IPv4 and IPv6 PDP/PDN is
allowed to be initiated to allocate IPv4 and IPv6 address separately.
The below lists the cases.
o The SGSN/MME returns Session Manamgement (SM) Cause #52, "Single
address bearers only allowed", or SM Cause #28 "Unknown PDP
address or PDP type" as per[TS24.008] and [TS24.301].
o The SGSN/MME does not set the Dual Address Bearer Flag due to the
operator using single addressing per bearer to support
interworking with nodes of earlier releases
A roaming subscriber with IPv4v6 PDP/PDN type have to change the
request into two separated PDP/PDN requests with single IP version in
order to achieve equivalent results. Some drawbacks in this case are
listed as following:
o The parallel PDP/PDN activations would likely double PDP/PDN
resources consumptions. It impacts the capacity of GGSN/PGW,
since a certain amount of PDP/PDN activations are only allowed on
those nodes.
o Some networks may only allow one PDP/PDN is alive for each
subscriber. For example, IPv6 PDP/PDN will be rejected if the
subscriber has an active IPv4 PDP/PDN. Therefore, the subscriber
will lost IPv6 connection in the visited network. It's even worse
that it may have a risk of losing all data connectivity if the
IPv6 PDP gets rejected with a permanent error at the APN-level and
not specific to the PDP-Type IPv6 requested.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
o Additional correlations between those two PDP/PDN contexts are
required on the charging system.
o Policy and Charging Rules Function(PCRF)/Policy and Charging
Enforcement Function (PCEF) treat IPv4 and IPv6 session as
independent and perform different Quality of Service (QoS)
policies. The subscriber may have unstable experiences due to
different behaviors on each IP version connection.
o Mobile devices may have the limitation of allowed simultaneous
PDP/PDN activations. Overmuch PDP/PDN activation may result in
other unrelated services broken.
Operators may have to disable the local-break mode to avoid the
risks. Another approach is to set a dedicated Access Point Name
(APN) profile to only request PDP/PDN type IPv4 in the roaming
network.
5.2. Case 2: Lack of IPv6 support in applications
Some operators may adopt IPv6-only configuration for the IMS service,
e.g. Voice over LTE (VoLTE)[IR.92] or Rich Communication Suite
(RCS)[RCC.07]. Since IMS roaming architecture will offload all
traffic in the visited network, a dual-stack subscriber can only be
assigned with IPv6 address and no IPv4 address returned. It requires
all the IMS based applications should be IPv6 capable. A
translation-based method, for example Bump-in-the-host (BIH)[RFC6535]
or 464xlat [RFC6877] may help to address the issue if there are IPv6
compatibility problems. Those functions could be automatically
enabled in an IPv6-only network and disabled in a dual-stack or IPv4
network.
5.3. Case 3: Fallback Incapability
3GPP specified the PDP/PDN type IPv6 as early as PDP/PDN type IPv4.
Therefore, the IPv6 single PDP/PDN type has been well supported and
interpretable in the 3GPP network nodes. Roaming to IPv4-only
networks with IPv6 PDP/PDN request could guarantee the subscription
data is compatible with the visited pre-Release 9 SGSN. When a
subscriber requests PDP/PDN type IPv6, the network should only return
the expected IPv6 address. The mobile device may be failed to get IP
address if the visited network only allocates an IPv4 address to a
subscriber. In that case, the request will be dropped and the cause
code should be sent to the user.
A proper fallback is desirable however the behavior is implementation
specific. There are some mobile devices have the ability to provide
a different configuration for home network and visited network
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
respectively. Android system solves the issue by setting the roaming
Access Point Name(APN). It guarantees UE will always initiate PDP/
PDN type IPv4 in the roaming area.
5.4. Case 4: 464xlat Support
464xlat[RFC6877] is proposed to address IPv4 compatibility issue in a
IPv6 single-stack environment. The function on a mobile terminal
likely gets along with PDP/PDN IPv6 type request to cooperate with a
remote NAT64[RFC6146] gateway. 464xlat may use the mechanism defined
in [RFC7050] to automatically detect the presence of DNS64 and learn
the IPv6 prefix used for protocol translation. When a mobile device
with 464xlat function roams to an IPv6 visited network without the
presence of NAT64 or DNS64, 464xlat may get failed to perform if
traffic is undergoing the local breakout approach.
The issue has been found mostly in a intra-PLMN mobility case for the
time being. Considering the various network's situations, operators
may turn off the local breakout and take home routed mode to perform
464xlat. Some devices may support the configuration to adopt 464xlat
in the home networks and use IPv4-only in the visited networks with
different roaming profile configurations. It could also be a
solution to address this issue.
6. Discussions
Several failure cases have been discussed in this document. It has
been testified the major issues are occurred at the two stages, i.e.,
the initial network attach and the IP allocation process.
During the initial network attach, PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 is major
concern to the visited pre-Release 9 SGSN. The dual-stack deployment
is recommended in most cases. However, it may take some times in a
mobile environment. 3GPP didn't specify PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 in the
early release. Such PDP/PDN type is supported in new-built EPS
network, but didn't support well in the third generation network.
The situations may cause the roaming issues dropping the attach
request from dual-stack subscribers. Operators may have to adopt
temporary solution unless all the interworking nodes(i.e. SSGN) in
the visited network have been upgraded to support ext-PDP-Type
feature.
The issues in the IP address allocation process are caused due to the
local breakout policy. Since the IP address is allocated by the
visited GGSN or PGW, the mismatch is found in the following aspects.
o The mismatch between requested PDP/PDN type and permitted PDP/PDN
type
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
o The mismatch between application capability and allowed network
connections
o The mismatch between mobile device function (e.g., 464xlat) and
particular network deployment status
There are some solutions to overcome the issue. Those solutions can
be done either in the network side or mobile device side. The below
lists potential workarounds.
o Change local breakout to the home routed mode
o A dedicated roaming APN profile is implemented for roamer. When a
subscriber roams to a visited network, PDP/PDN type IPv4 is always
be selected for session activation.
o Networks could deploy AAA server to coordinate the mobile device
capability. Once the GGSN/PGW receive the session creation
requests, it will initiate an Access-Request to an AAA server in
the home land via the Radius protocol. The Access-Request
contains subscriber and visited network information, e.g. PDP/PDN
Type, International Mobile Equipment Id (IMEI), Software
Version(SV) and visited SGSN/MME location code, etc. The AAA
server could take mobile device capability combining with the
visited network information to ultimately determine the type of
session to be created, i.e. IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Even if this document does not define a new architecture nor a new
protocol, it is encouraged to refer to [RFC6459] for a generic
discussion on IPv6-related security considerations.
9. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to F. Baker and J. Brzozowski for their support.
This document is the result of the IETF v6ops IPv6-Roaming design
team effort.
The authors would like to thank Mikael Abrahamsson, Victor Kuarsingh,
Heatley Nick, Alexandru Petrescu, Tore Anderson and Cameron Byrne for
their helpful comments.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[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.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
6877, April 2013.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC
7050, November 2013.
10.2. Informative References
[EU-Roaming-III]
"http://www.amdocs.com/Products/Revenue-
Management/Documents/
amdocs-eu-roaming-regulation-III-solution.pdf", July 2013.
[IR.21] Global System for Mobile Communications Association,
GSMA., "Roaming Database, Structure and Updating
Procedures", July 2012.
[IR.33] Global System for Mobile Communications Association,
GSMA., "GPRS Roaming Guidelines", July 2012.
[IR.65] Global System for Mobile Communications Association,
GSMA., "IMS Roaming & Interworking Guidelines", May 2012.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
[IR.88] Global System for Mobile Communications Association,
GSMA., "LTE Roaming Guidelines", January 2012.
[IR.92] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), , "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS Version 7.0",
March 2013.
[RCC.07] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), , "Rich Communication Suite 5.1 Advanced
Communications Services and Client Specification Version
4.0", November 2013.
[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.
[RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.
[TR23.975]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "IPv6 migration
guidelines", June 2011.
[TS23.060]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS); Service description; Stage 2 v9.00",
March 2009.
[TS23.401]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved Universal
Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access v9.00",
March 2009.
[TS24.008]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Mobile radio
interface Layer 3 specification; Core network protocols;
Stage 3 v9.00", September 2009.
[TS24.301]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Non-Access-
Stratum (NAS) protocol for Evolved Packet System (EPS) ;
Stage 3 v9.00", September 2009.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
[TS29.002]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Mobile
Application Part (MAP) specification v9.00", December
2009.
[TS29.272]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Mobility
Management Entity (MME) and Serving GPRS Support Node
(SGSN) related interfaces based on Diameter protocol
v9.00", September 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Gang Chen
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: denghui@chinamobile.com
Dave Michaud
Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Rd.
Brampton, ON L6T 0C1
Canada
Email: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Jouni Korhonen
Renesas Mobile
Porkkalankatu 24
FIN-00180 Helsinki, Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis July 2014
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes,
35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Vizdal Ales
Deutsche Telekom AG
Tomickova 2144/1
Prague 4, 149 00
Czech Republic
Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14]