V6OPS Working Group D. Binet
Internet-Draft M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational France Telecom
Expires: September 28, 2013 A. Vizdal
Deutsche Telekom AG
C. Byrne
T-Mobile
G. Chen
China Mobile
March 27, 2013
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for Mobile Devices
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-01
Abstract
This document specifies an IPv6 profile for mobile devices. It lists
the set of features a mobile device is to be compliant with to
connect to an IPv6-only or dual-stack mobile network.
This document defines a different profile than the one for general
connection to IPv6 mobile networks defined in [RFC3316]. In
particular, this document identifies also features to ensure IPv4
service continuity over an IPv6-only transport.
Both Hosts and devices with LAN capabilities are in scope.
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 September 28, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Special Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Connectivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. WiFi Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Advanced Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. APIs & Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
IPv6 deployment in mobile networks is the only perennial solution to
the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. Several mobile
operators already deployed IPv6 or are in the pre-deployment phase.
One of the major hurdles encountered by mobile operators is the
availability of non-broken IPv6 implementation in mobile devices.
Some vendors are already proposing some mobile devices with a set of
IPv6 features, but the majority of devices are still lacking IPv6
support.
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
[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
considered.
This document defines a different profile than the one for general
connection to IPv6 mobile networks defined in [RFC3316]; in
particular:
o It lists an extended list of required features while
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis] identifies issues and explains how to
implement basic IPv6 features in a mobile context.
o It identifies also features to ensure IPv4 service continuity over
an IPv6-only transport.
This document specifies an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing
required specifications produced by various SDOs (in particular 3GPP
and IETF). The objectives of this effort are:
1. List in one single document all requirements a mobile device is
to comply with to connect to an IPv6 or dual stack mobile
network. These requirements cover various network types such as
GPRS, EPC or Wi-Fi network.
2. Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list
preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers). This is
also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards
device vendors.
3. Vendors to be aware of a minimal set of requirements to allow for
IPv6 connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6- only
transport).
Pointers to some requirements listed in [RFC6434] are included in
this profile. The justification for using a stronger language
compared to what is specified in [RFC6434] is provided for some
requirements.
Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
activate dedicated functions at the network side. It is out of scope
of this document to list these network-side functions.
A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
in [RFC6459].
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
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
functionalities.
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 out of scope.
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".
1.2. Special 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].
This document is not a standard. It uses the normative keywords only
for precision.
2. Connectivity Requirements
REQ#1: The cellular host MUST be compliant with Section 5.9.1 (IPv6
Addressing Architecture) and Section 5.8 (ICMPv6 support) of
[RFC6434].
REQ#2: The cellular host MUST support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP
Contexts.
This allows each operator to select their own strategy
regarding IPv6 introduction. Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
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
capabilities):
* 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.
The text above focuses on the specification part which explains
the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP context(s).
Understanding this behavior is important to avoid having broken
IPv6 implementations in cellular devices.
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.
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.
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
REQ#6: The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
([RFC4861] and [RFC5942]).
This is a stronger form compared to what is specified in
Section 12.2 of [RFC6434]. The support of Neighbor Discovery
Protocol is mandatory in mobile environment as it is the only
way to convey IPv6 prefix towards the mobile device.
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 must comply with Section 7.3 of [RFC6434].
The support of Router Advertisement Options for DNS
configuration 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 must comply with Section 7.2.1 of
[RFC6434].
Stateless DHCPv6 is useful to retrieve other information than
DNS.
If [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD
retrieve DNS information using stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736].
If the cellular host receives the DNS information in several
channels for the same interface, the following preference
order MUST be followed:
1. PCP
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
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.
In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts SHOULD follow
[I-D.ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used
by an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64 device. If PCP is not
enabled, the cellular host SHOULD implement the method
specified in [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] to
retrieve the PREFIX64.
REQ#12: The cellular host SHOULD implement the Customer Side
Translator (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.
REQ#15: When the cellular host is dual stack connected, it SHOULD
support means to prefer native IPv6 connection over connection
established through translation devices (e.g., NAT44 and NAT64).
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
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 Happy Eyeballs procedure
defined in [RFC6555].
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). Refer to Section 4 for DAD
considerations on the LAN interface when the 3GPP connection is
shared.
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. In
particular, IPv6-only connectivity MUST be supported over the
Wi-Fi interface.
Recent tests revealed that IPv4 configuration is required
to enable IPv6-only connectivity. Indeed, some cellular
handsets can access a Wi-Fi IPv6-only network by
configuring first a static IPv4 address. Once the device
is connected to the network and the wlan0 interface got an
IPv6 global address, the IPv4 address can be deleted from
the configuration. This avoids the device to ask
automatically for a DHCPv4 server, and allows to connect to
IPv6-only networks.
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]) MUST
be supported.
REQ#20: DHCPv6 client SHOULD be supported on Wi-Fi interface.
Refer to Section 7.2.1 of [RFC6434].
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
REQ#21: Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
for DNS configuration (See Section Section 7.3 of [RFC6434]).
If the device receives the DNS information in several channels
for the same interface, the following preference order MUST be
followed:
1. RA
2. DHCPv6
3. Advanced Requirements
REQ#22: The cellular host must comply with Section 5.6.1 of
[RFC6434]. 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.
REQ#23: The cellular host must comply with Section 5.9.3 of
[RFC6434] for the support of the Privacy Extensions for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6.
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]).
This is a stronger form compared to what is specified in
[RFC6434]. The justification is some flags are used by the
GGSN (or PDN-GW) to inform cellular hosts about the
autoconfiguration process.
REQ#26: The cellular host must comply with Section 5.3 of [RFC6434]
and SHOULD support Router Advertisement extension for
communicating default router preferences and more-specific
routes as described in [RFC4191].
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
This function can be used for instance for traffic offload.
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.
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 avoided.
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 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 half).
REQ#28: The cellular device MUST be compliant with the CPE
requirements specified in [RFC6204].
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
REQ#29: For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the
cellular device SHOULD support [I-D.ietf-v6ops-64share] to
enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards
the GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.
REQ#30: 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 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 host.
REQ#31: 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#32: Name resolution libraries MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6.
In particular, the cellular host MUST support [RFC3596].
REQ#33: Applications MUST be independent of the underlying IP
address family.
This means applications must be IP version agnostic.
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
REQ#34: Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986]. For example,
SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in
[RFC5954].
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations identified in [RFC3316] are to be taken
into account.
REQ#35: If the cellular device provides LAN features, it SHOULD be
compliant with the 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, M. Mawatari, M. Abrahamsson, P. Vickers,
V. Kuarsingh, and J. Woodyatt for the discussion in the v6ops
mailing list.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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.
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
[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.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, December 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
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", draft-
ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-16 (work in
progress), March 2013.
[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-02 (work in progress),
February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", draft-ietf-pcp-
base-29 (work in progress), November 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64]
Boucadair, M., "Learn NAT64 PREFIX64s using PCP", draft-
ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-00 (work in progress), February
2013.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", draft-
ietf-v6ops-464xlat-10 (work in progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-64share]
Byrne, C., Drown, D., and V. Ales, "Extending an IPv6 /64
Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN", draft-ietf-
v6ops-64share-03 (work in progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis]
Korhonen, J., Arkko, J., Savolainen, T., and S. Krishnan,
"IPv6 for 3GPP Cellular Hosts", draft-ietf-v6ops-
rfc3316bis-01 (work in progress), February 2013.
[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.
[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]
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices March 2013
3GPP, , "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification;
Core network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011.
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
Email: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile
USA
Email: Cameron.Byrne@T-Mobile.com
Gang Chen
China Mobile
Email: phdgang@gmail.com
Binet, et al. Expires September 28, 2013 [Page 16]