[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 00 RFC 7849

V6OPS Working Group                                             D. Binet
Internet-Draft                                              M. Boucadair
Intended status: Informational                            France Telecom
Expires: September 12, 2013                                    A. Vizdal
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                                C. Byrne
                                                                T-Mobile
                                                                 G. Chen
                                                            China Mobile
                                                          March 11, 2013


     Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for Mobile Devices
               draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-00

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.  The 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 12, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   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.  Why this document is needed?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Special Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Connectivity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  WiFi Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Advanced Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Cellular Devices with LAN Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  APIs & Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

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
   considered.

   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].





Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


1.1.  Why this document is needed?

   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.

   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).

   This document lists the required features while
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis] is doing a good job in identifying issues
   and explaining how to implement basic IPv6 features in a mobile
   context.  Some of the features discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis] are also listed in this document as a
   requirement: the main reason is to collect in one single document a
   comprehensive list of requirements with the required language.

1.2.  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.





Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   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".

1.3.  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 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
        Contexts.

           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
        capabilities):

        *  If the requested IPv4v6 PDP context is not supported by the
           network, but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


           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.

   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.






Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   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].

           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.  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.

           In PCP-based environments, cellular hosts SHOULD follow
           [I-D.ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64] to learn the IPv6 Prefix used



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


           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).

           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



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


        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
          ([RFC3736]).

   REQ#21:  Wi-Fi interface SHOULD support Router Advertisement Options
          for DNS configuration ([RFC6106]).  If the device receives the
          DNS information in several channels for the same interface,
          the following preference order MUST be followed:

   REQ#21:

          1.  RA
          2.  DHCPv6

3.  Advanced Requirements

   REQ#22:  The cellular host MUST support Path MTU discovery
          ([RFC1981]).  If the MTU used by cellular hosts is larger than



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


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


          1280 bytes, they can rely on Path MTU discovery function to
          discover the real path MTU.

   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 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



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


             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].

   REQ#29:  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 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



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


             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.

   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.




Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


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

   [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
              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.





Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   [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.

   [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.



Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   [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-14 (work in
              progress), February 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]
              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.




Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 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]
              3GPP, , "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification;
              Core network protocols; Stage 3", June 2011.

Authors' Addresses









Binet, et al.          Expires September 12, 2013              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices          March 2013


   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 12, 2013              [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/