V6OPS Working Group                                             D. Binet
Internet-Draft                                              M. Boucadair
Updates: 3316 (if approved)                               France Telecom
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Vizdal
Expires: April 8, 2013                               Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                                C. Byrne
                                                                 G. Chen
                                                            China Mobile
                                                         October 5, 2012

         Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Cellular Hosts


   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",
   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 April 8, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 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 the 3GPP and the
   IETF whilst others have been updated.  Moreover, in the light of
   recent IPv6 production deployments, additional features to facilitate
   IPv6-only deployments while accessing IPv4-only service are to be

   This document updates [RFC3316] with additional new functionalities
   which cellular hosts need to support.

   While [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 can be connected to 3GPP networks requiring
   specific functions.  Indeed, a 3GPP network can be used to connect
   user equipment such as a mobile telephone, a CPE or a machine-to-
   machine (M2M) device.  Because of this diversity of terminals, it is
   necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities valid for any node
   directly connecting to a 3GPP network.  This document describes these

   This document is structured to initially provide the generic IPv6
   requirements which are valid for all nodes, whatever their function
   or service (e.g., SIP [RFC3261]) capability.  The document also
   contains, dedicated sections covering specific functionalities the
   specific device types must support (e.g., smartphones, devices
   providing some LAN functions (mobile CPE or broadband dongles)).

   M2M devices profile is not considered in the first version of this

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

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

2.  Connectivity Requirements

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

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

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

   REQ#3:  The cellular host MUST comply with the behavior defined in
        [TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a 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

        *    If the requested IPv4v6 PDP context is not supported by the
             network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the
             cellular host will be configured with an IPv4 address
             and/or an IPv6 prefix by the network.  It MAY initiate
             another PDP request in addition to 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 April 8, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

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

             Traffic Flow Templates are employing a Packet Filter to
             couple an IP traffic with a PDP-Context.  Thus a dedicated
             PDP-Context and radio resources can be provided by the
             mobile network for certain IP traffic.

   REQ#6:  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#7:  The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
        ([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]).

             In particular, MTU communication via Router Advertisement
             SHOULD be supported since many 3GPP networks do not have a
             standard MTU setting due to inconsistencies in GTP
             [RFC3314] mobility tunnel infrastructure deployments.

   REQ#8:  The cellular host MUST support IPv6 Stateless Address
        Autoconfiguration ([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.

   REQ#9:  The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
        [RFC6106] for DNS configuration.

             The support of this function allows for a consistent method
             of informing cellular hosts about DNS recursive servers
             across various types of access networks.  The cellular host
             SHOULD support RA-based DNS information discovery.

   REQ#10:  The cellular host SHOULD embed a DHCPv6 client [RFC3736].

             If [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD
             retrieve DNS information using stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736].

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

             If the cellular host receives the DNS information in
             several channels for the same interface, the following
             preference order MUST be followed:
             1.   PCO
             2.   RA
             3.   DHCPv6

   REQ#11:  The cellular host SHOULD support a method to locally
        construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052].  A method to
        learn PREFIX64 SHOULD be supported by the cellular host.

             This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 referrals
             on IPv6-only access networks.

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

   REQ#12:  The cellular host SHOULD implement the 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#13:  The cellular device SHOULD embed a DNS64 function [RFC6147].

             Local DNS64 functionality allows for compatibility with
             DNSSEC.  Means to configure or discover a PREFIX64 is also
             required on the cellular device.

   REQ#14:  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 by keepalive messages.  PCP also
             gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections to
             the user.  Indeed, because several stateful devices may be
             deployed in mobile networks (e.g., NAT and/or Firewalls),
             PCP can be used by the cellular host to control network
             based NAT and Firewall functions which will reduce per-
             application signaling and save battery consumption.

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   REQ#15:  The cellular host SHOULD support means to prefer native IPv6
        connection over NAT64 devices or NAT44 when the cellular host
        gets dual stack connectivity.

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

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

   REQ#16:  The cellular host SHOULD support the procedure defined in

   REQ#17:  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).

   REQ#18:  The cellular device MAY embed a BIH function [RFC6535]
        facilitating the communication between an IPv4 application and
        an IPv6 server.

2.1.  WiFi Connectivity

   It is increasingly common for cellular hosts have a Wi-Fi interface
   in addition to their cellular interface.  These hosts are likely to
   be connected to private or public hotspots.  Below are listed some
   generic requirements:

   REQ#19:  IPv6 MUST be supported on the Wi-Fi interface.

   REQ#20:  DHCPv6 client SHOULD be supported on Wi-Fi interface

   REQ#21:  Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
          for DNS configuration ([RFC6106]).

3.  Advanced Requirements

   REQ#22:  The cellular host MUST support Path MTU discovery
          ([RFC1981]).  If the MTU used by cellular hosts is larger than
          1280 bytes, they can rely on Path MTU discovery function to
          discover the real path MTU.

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

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

                 The activation of privacy extension makes it more
                 difficult to track a host over time when compared to
                 using a permanent interface identifier.  [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 packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4.

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

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

   REQ#26:  The cellular host SHOULD support Router Advertisement
          extension for communicating default router preferences and
          more-specific routes as described in [RFC4191].

                 This function can be used for instance for traffic

4.  Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities

   This section focuses on cellular devices (e.g., CPE, smartphones or
   dongles with tethering features) which provide IP connectivity to
   other devices connected to them.  In such case, all connected devices
   are sharing the same GPRS, UMTS or EPS connection.  In addition to
   the generic requirements listed in Section 2, these cellular devices
   have to meet the requirements listed below.

   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 has to support a mechanism to enable sharing a /64 prefix
   between the 3GPP interface towards the GGSN (WAN interface) and the
   LAN interfaces.

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

      [NOTE: Update the text with a pointer to I-D.byrne-v6ops-64share
      once adopted in v6ops.]

   REQ#27:  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 IP-based
                 services delivery; especially with the advent of
                 smartphones and 3GPP data 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

                 In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using
                 DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two

                        (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 the Prefix Exclude Option, the delegating
                 router (GGSN/PDN-GW) will have to ensure [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

   REQ#28:  The cellular device MUST be compliant with the CPE
          requirements specified in [RFC6204].

   REQ#29:  The cellular device SHOULD support the 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

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

                 does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for
                 hosts connected on the 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

   REQ#30:  If a RA MTU is advertised from the 3GPP network, the
          cellular device SHOULD relay that upstream MTU information to
          the downstream attached LAN devices in RA.

                 Since 3GPP networks extensively use IP-in-IP/UDP GTP
                 tunnels, the effective MTU is frequently effectively
                 reduced to 1440 bytes.  While a host may generate
                 packets with an MTU of 1500 bytes, this results in
                 undesirable fragmentation of the GTP IP/UDP packets.

                 Receiving and relaying RA MTU values facilitates a more
                 harmonious functioning of the mobile core network where
                 end nodes transmit packets that do not exceed the MTU
                 size of the mobile network's GTP tunnels.

5.  APIs & Applications

   REQ#31:  Name resolution libraries MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6.

                 In particular, the cellular host MUST support

   REQ#32:  Applications MUST be independent of the underlying IP
          address family.

                 This means applications must be IP version agnostic.

   REQ#33:  Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986].  For example,
          SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in

6.  Security Considerations

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

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   REQ#34:  If the cellular device provides LAN features, it SHOULD be
          compliant with the security requirements specified in

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 M. Mawatari 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.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
              October 2003.

   [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

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.

   [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.

   [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.

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

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   [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

              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.

              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.

              Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-ietf-pcp-base-28 (work in progress), October 2012.

              Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   [RFC3314]  Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third
              Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards",
              RFC 3314, September 2002.

   [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.

   [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.

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

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

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

Authors' Addresses

   David Binet
   France Telecom

   Email: david.binet@orange.com

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 for Cellular Hosts            October 2012

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes,   35000

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

   Ales Vizdal
   Deutsche Telekom AG

   Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz

   Cameron Byrne

   Email: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com

   Gang Chen
   China Mobile

   Email: phdgang@gmail.com

Binet, et al.             Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 15]