Network Working Group G. Chen
Internet-Draft H. Deng
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: February 4, 2015 D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
J. Korhonen
Renesas Mobile
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG
August 3, 2014
IPv6 Roaming Behavior Analysis
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02
Abstract
This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
encountered by an IPv6-enabled mobile 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 February 4, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 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. HLR/HSS User Profile Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Many Mobile Operators have deployed IPv6, or are about to, in their
operational networks. A customer in such a network can be provided
IPv6 connectivity if their User Equipment (UE) is 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]). Depending on network conditions either dual-stack or
single-stack IPv6 is selected.
In production networks, it has been observed that a mobile subscriber
roaming around a different operator's areas may experience service
degradations or interruptions due to inconsistent configurations and
incomplete functionality of equipment in the network.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
A mobile subscriber roaming to different operator's network may
experience service degradations or interruptions due to inconsistent
configurations and incomplete functions in the visited network.
2. Roaming Architecture Description
Roaming occurs in several scenarios:
o International roaming: a mobile UE may enter a visited network,
where a different Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identity is
used. The UEs could, either in an automatic mode or a manual
mode, attach to the visited PLMN.
o Intra-PLMN mobility: a mobile UE moves to a different area of the
Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN). However, the subscriber
profile may not be stored in the area. To allow network
attachment the subscribers profile needs to be downloaded from the
home network area.
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 to. The
Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) or the 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. After 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 are shown in the figure to illustrate, these 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 February 4, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
+---------------------------------+ +------------------------+
|Visited Network | |Home Network |
| +----+ +--------+ | Signaling | +--------+ |
| | UE |==========>|SGSN/MME|---------------------->|HLR/HSS | |
| +----+ +--------+ | | +--------+ |
| || | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| |GGSN/PGW| | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| Traffic Flow || | | |
+-----------------------||--------+ +------------------------+
\/
Figure 2: Local Breakout
In the home routed mode, the subscriber's UE activates the PDP/PDN
context and get an address from the home network. All traffic is
routed back to the home network. This is likely to be the case
international roaming of Internet data services to facilitate the
charging process between the two operators concerned.
In the local breakout mode, the subscriber address is assigned by 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 network. Therefore,a more efficient route to the data
service 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 an operator network
might use local breakout mode in order to get more efficient traffic
routing. The local breakout mode could be also applied to an
operator's 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). Consequently, the traffic would be steered to
the visited network. Those functions are normally deployed for
the Intra-PLMN mobility cases.
o Operators may also configure the VPLMN-Dynamic-Address-Allowed
flag[TS29.272] in the user profile to enable local breakout mode
in a Visited Public Land Mobile Networks (VPLMNs).
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 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 the IMS international roaming
architecture. Local breakout mode has been adopted for the IMS
roaming architecture.
3. Roaming Scenario
Two stages occur when a subscriber roams to a visited network and
intends to start data services.
o Network attachment: this occurs when the subscriber enters a
visited network. During an attachment, the visited network should
authenticate the subscriber and make a location update to the HSS/
HLR in the home network of the subscriber. Accordingly, the
subscriber profile is offered from the HSS/HLR. The subscriber
profile contains the allowed Access Point Names (APN), the allowed
PDP/PDN Types and rules regarding the routing of data sessions
(i.e. home routed or local breakout mode) [TS29.272]. The SGSN/
MME in the visited network can use this information to facilitate
the subsequent PDP/PDN session creation.
o PDP/PDN context creation: this occurs after the subscriber makes a
successful attachment. This stage is integrated with the
attachment stage in the case of 4G, but is a seperate 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 subscriber creates a data session, their device requests a
particular PDP/PDN Type. The allowed PDP/PDN types for that
subscriber are learned in the attachment stage. Hence, SGSN/MME
could initiate PDP/PDN request to GGSN/PGW if the subscription
profile is allowed.
The failures are likely to occur in both stages due to an incompliant
implementation in the visited network or a mismatch between the
subscriber requested and the capability of the visited network. The
failures in the attachment stage are independent of home routed or
the local breakout mode, while most failure cases in the PDP/PDN
context creation stage occur in the local breakout cases. Section 4
and 5 describe each case. The below table lists several cases
concerning the PDP/PDN creation stage.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 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 request
both IPv4 and IPv6 within a single PDP/PDN request. This option is
stored as a part of subscription data for a subscriber in the HLR/
HSS. PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 has been introduced at the inception of
Evolved Packet System (EPS) in 4G networks. The nodes in 4G networks
should present no issues with the handling of this PDN type.
However, support varies in 2/3G networks depending on Serving GPRS
Support Node (SGSN) software version. In theory, S4-SGSN (i.e. an
SGSN with S4 interface) supports the PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 since
Release8 and a Gn-SGSN (i.e. the SGSN with Gn interface) supports 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 that is conveyed to SGSN from the 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 it 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's
data received in the Insert Subscriber Data Procedure[TS23.060]. As
a consequence, it will likely refuse the subscriber attach request.
This is erroneous behavior due to the equipment not being 3GPP
Release 9 compliant.
Operators may have to remove the PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 from the HLR/HSS
in the home network, that will restrict UEs to only initiate IPv4 PDP
or IPv6 PDP activation. In order to avoid this situation, operators
should make a comprehensive roaming agreement to support IPv6 and
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
ensure that it aligns with the GSMA documents, e.g. [IR.33], [IR.88]
and [IR.21]. Such an agreement requires the visited operator to get
the necessary patch on all their SGSN nodes to support PDP/PDN type
IPv4v6.
As an alternative solution there are some specific implementations
(not standardised by 3GPP) in the HLS/HSS of the home network. When
the HLR/HSS receives an Update Location message from a visited SGSN
known to not support the PDP type IPv4v6, subscription data with only
PDP/PDN type IPv4 will be sent to that SGSN in the Insert Subscriber
Data procedure. It guarantees the user profile is compatible with
visited SGSN/MME capability.
5. Failure Cases in PDP/PDN Creation
When a subscriber succeeds in the attach stage, the IP allocation
process takes place to allocate IP addresses to the subscriber. This
section summarizes 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 separate parallel single-stack IPv4 and
IPv6 PDP/PDN connections are allowed to be initiated to separately
allocate IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
The cases are listed below:
o The SGSN/MME returns Session Management (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 because the
operator uses single addressing per bearer to support interworking
with nodes of earlier releases
A roaming subscriber's UE with IPv4v6 PDP/PDN type has to change the
request into two separated PDP/PDN requests with a single IP version
in order to achieve equivalent results. Some drawbacks of this case
are listed as below:
o The parallel PDP/PDN activations would likely double PDP/PDN
resources consumptions. It also 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, an IPv6 PDP/PDN will be rejected if the
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
subscriber has an active IPv4 PDP/PDN. Therefore, the subscriber
will lose the IPv6 connection in the visited network. It is even
worse as they 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.
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) treats the IPv4 and IPv6 session as
independent and performs 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 a limitation on allowed simultaneous PDP/
PDN activations. Excessive 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 an IPv6-only configuration for the IMS
service, e.g. Voice over LTE (VoLTE)[IR.92] or Rich Communication
Suite (RCS)[RCC.07]. Since the IMS roaming architecture will offload
all traffic in the visited network, a dual-stack subscriber can only
be assigned with an IPv6 prefix and no IPv4 address returned. This
requires that 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 and making an IPv6 PDP/PDN request should guarantee that 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 prefix. The mobile device may fail to get
an IPv6 prefix if the visited network only allocates an IPv4 address
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
to the 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 respectively. For instance, the Android system
solves the issue by setting the roaming protocol to IPv4 for the
Access Point Name(APN). It guarantees that UE will always initiate
an PDP/PDN type IPv4 in the roaming area.
5.4. Case 4: 464xlat Support
464xlat[RFC6877] is proposed to address the IPv4 compatibility issue
in an IPv6 single-stack environment. The function on a mobile device
is likely in conjunction with a PDP/PDN IPv6 type request and
cooperates with a remote NAT64[RFC6146] gateway. 464xlat may use the
mechanism defined in [RFC7050] to automatically detect the presence
of DNS64 and to learn the IPv6 prefix used for protocol translation.
In the local breakout approach when a mobile device with 464xlat
function roams to an IPv6 visited network without the presence of
NAT64 or DNS64, 464xlat will fail to function.
The issue has been found mostly in intra-PLMN mobility cases for the
time being. Considering the various network's situations, operators
may turn off the local breakout and use the 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. This could
also be a solution to address this issue.
6. HLR/HSS User Profile Setting
A proper user profile configuration could provide deterministic
network control of the connectivity requests from dual-stack,
IPv4-only and IPv6-only devices. It's desirable that the network
could set-up proper connectivity for any type of the devices.The HLR/
HSS may have to apply extra logic to achieve this.
The following are examples to demonstrate the settings for the
scenarios and decision criteria to apply when returning user profile
information to visited SGSN.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
Scenario 1: Support IPv6-only, IPv4-only and dual-stack devices
user profile #1:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
ext-pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4v6
...
}
user profile #2:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv6
....
}
The full PDP-context parameters is refered to Section 17.7.1 "Mobile
Sevice date types" of [TS29.002]. User profile 1 and 2 share the
same contextId. The setting of user profile #1 enables IPv4-only and
dual-stack devices to work. And, the user profile #2 fulfills the
request if the device asks for IPv6 only PDP context.
Scenario 2: Support dual-stack devices with pre-R9 vSGSN access
user profile #1:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
ext-pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4v6
...
}
user profile #2:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
}
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
User profile 1 and 2 share the same contextId. If a visited SGSN is
identified as early as pre-Release 9, HLR/HSS should only send user
profile#2 to visited SGSN.
7. Discussions
Several failure cases have been discussed in this document. It has
been testified that the major issues happened at two stages, i.e.,
the initial network attach and the IP allocation process.
During the initial network attach, PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 is the 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 with the attach
request from dual-stack subscribers. Operators may have to adopt
temporary solution unless all the interworking nodes(i.e. the SSGN)
in the visited network have been upgraded to support the ext-PDP-Type
feature.
The issues in the IP address allocation process are caused by a 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 the requested PDP/PDN type and the permitted
PDP/PDN type
o The mismatch between the application capability and allowed
network connections
o The mismatch between mobile device function (e.g., 464xlat) and
the support for that function in the vistited network
There are some solutions to overcome the issue. Those solutions can
be made either in the network side or mobile device side. There
exist several potential workarounds.
o Change local breakout to the home routed mode
o A dedicated roaming APN profile is implemented for the roamer.
When a subscriber roams to a visited network, PDP/PDN type IPv4 is
to be always selected for session activation.
o Networks could deploy an AAA server to coordinate the mobile
device capability. Once the GGSN/PGW receives the session
creation request, it will initiate an Access-Request to an AAA
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
server in the home network 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 and combine it with the
visited network information to ultimately determine the type of
session to be created, i.e. IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Although this document defines neither a new architecture nor a new
protocol, it is encouraged to refer to [RFC6459] for a generic
discussion on IPv6-related security considerations.
10. 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.
The authors especially thank Fred Baker and Ross Chandler for his
efforts and contributions on editing which substantially improves the
legibility of the document.
11. References
11.1. 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.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
[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.
11.2. 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.
[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.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
[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.
[TS29.002]
3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP., "Mobile
Application Part (MAP) specification v9.12.0", 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.
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
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
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes,
35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Roaming Analysis August 2014
Vizdal Ales
Deutsche Telekom AG
Tomickova 2144/1
Prague 4, 149 00
Czech Republic
Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz
Chen, et al. Expires February 4, 2015 [Page 16]