draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03.txt   rfc7066.txt 
IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) J. Korhonen, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Korhonen, Ed.
Internet-Draft Renesas Mobile Request for Comments: 7066 Broadcom
Obsoletes: 3316 (if approved) J. Arkko, Ed. Obsoletes: 3316 J. Arkko, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Ericsson Category: Informational Ericsson
Expires: November 28, 2013 T. Savolainen ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Savolainen
Nokia Nokia
S. Krishnan S. Krishnan
Ericsson Ericsson
May 27, 2013 November 2013
IPv6 for 3GPP Cellular Hosts IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03.txt
Abstract Abstract
As the deployment of third and fourth generation cellular networks As the deployment of third and fourth generation cellular networks
progresses, a large number of cellular hosts are being connected to progresses, a large number of cellular hosts are being connected to
the Internet. Standardization organizations have made Internet the Internet. Standardization organizations have made the Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6) mandatory in their specifications. Protocol version 6 (IPv6) mandatory in their specifications.
However, the concept of IPv6 covers many aspects and numerous However, the concept of IPv6 covers many aspects and numerous
specifications. In addition, the characteristics of cellular links specifications. In addition, the characteristics of cellular links
in terms of bandwidth, cost and delay put special requirements on how in terms of bandwidth, cost, and delay put special requirements on
IPv6 is used. This document considers IPv6 for cellular hosts that how IPv6 is used. This document considers IPv6 for cellular hosts
attach to the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Universal Mobile that attach to the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Universal
Telecommunications System (UMTS), or Evolved Packet System (EPS) Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), or Evolved Packet System
networks (Hereafter collectively referred to as 3GPP networks). This (EPS) networks (hereafter collectively referred to as Third
document also lists out specific IPv6 functionalities that need to be Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) networks). This document also
implemented in addition what is already prescribed in the IPv6 Node lists specific IPv6 functionalities that need to be implemented in
Requirements document. It also discusses some issues related to the addition to what is already prescribed in the IPv6 Node Requirements
document (RFC 6434). It also discusses some issues related to the
use of these components when operating in these networks. This use of these components when operating in these networks. This
document obsoletes RFC 3316. document obsoletes RFC 3316.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Scope of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope of This Document .....................................3
1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Abbreviations ..............................................5
1.3. Cellular Host IPv6 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Cellular Host IPv6 Features ................................6
2. Basic IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Basic IP ........................................................6
2.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 ................................6
2.2. Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks ........................6
2.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration ........................8
2.4. IP version 6 over PPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4. IP Version 6 over PPP ......................................8
2.5. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 . . . . . . . 10 2.5. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 ................9
2.6. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 . . . 10 2.6. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 .......9
2.7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) . . 10 2.7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) ......9
2.8. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation ..................................10
2.9. Router preferences and more specific routes . . . . . . . 11 2.9. Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes ...............10
2.10. Neighbor Discovery and additional host configuration . . . 11 2.10. Neighbor Discovery and Additional Host Configuration .....10
3. IP Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. IP Security ....................................................11
3.1. Extension header considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Extension Header Considerations ...........................11
4. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Mobility .......................................................11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Acknowledgements ...............................................11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations ........................................12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References .....................................................14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. Normative References ......................................14
8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Informative References ....................................15
8.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Cellular Host IPv6 Addressing in the 3GPP Model .......17
Appendix A. Cellular Host IPv6 Addressing in the 3GPP Model . . . 16 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3316 .................................18
Appendix B. Changes to RFC 3316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.1. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03 . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.2. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-02 . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.3. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-01 . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.4. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Technologies such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), UMTS Technologies such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), Evolved Packet System (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), Evolved Packet System
(EPS), CDMA2000 (Code Division Multiple Access 2000) and eHRPD (EPS), CDMA2000 (Code Division Multiple Access 2000), and eHRPD
(Enhanced High Rate Packet Data) are making it possible for cellular (Enhanced High Rate Packet Data) are making it possible for cellular
hosts to have an always-on connection to the Internet. IPv6 hosts to have an always-on connection to the Internet. IPv6
[RFC2460] has become essential to such networks as the number of [RFC2460] has become essential to such networks as the number of
cellular hosts is increasing rapidly. Standardization organizations cellular hosts is increasing rapidly. Standardization organizations
working with cellular technologies have recognized this and made IPv6 working with cellular technologies have recognized this and made IPv6
mandatory in their specifications. mandatory in their specifications.
Support for IPv6 and the introduction of UMTS started with 3GPP Support for IPv6 and the introduction of UMTS started with 3GPP
Release-99 networks and hosts. For the detailed description of IPv6 Release-99 networks and hosts. For a detailed description of IPv6 in
in 3GPP networks including the Evolved Packet System, see [RFC6459]. 3GPP networks, including the Evolved Packet System, see [RFC6459].
1.1. Scope of this Document 1.1. Scope of This Document
For the purpose of this document, a cellular interface is considered For the purpose of this document, a cellular interface is considered
to be the interface to a cellular access network based on the to be the interface to a cellular access network based on the
following standards: 3GPP GPRS and UMTS Release-99, Release-4 to following standards: 3GPP GPRS and UMTS Release-99 and Release-4 to
Release-11, and EPS Release-8 to Release-11 as well as future UMTS or Release-11; EPS Release-8 to Release-11; and future UMTS or EPS
EPS releases. A cellular host is considered to be a host with such a releases. A cellular host is considered to be a host with such a
cellular interface. cellular interface.
This document complements the IPv6 node requirements [RFC6434] in This document complements the IPv6 Node Requirements [RFC6434] in
places where clarifications are needed the with discussion on the use places where clarifications are needed with discussion on the use of
of these selected IPv6 specifications when operating over a cellular these selected IPv6 specifications when operating over a cellular
interface. Such a specification is necessary in order to enable the interface. Such a specification is necessary in order to enable the
optimal use of IPv6 in a cellular network environment. The optimal use of IPv6 in a cellular network environment. The
description is made from a cellular host point of view. description is made from the point of view of a cellular host.
Complementary access technologies may be supported by the cellular Complementary access technologies may be supported by the cellular
host, but those are not discussed in detail. Important host, but those are not discussed in detail. Important
considerations are given in order to eliminate unnecessary user considerations are given in order to eliminate unnecessary user
confusion over configuration options, ensure interoperability and to confusion over configuration options, ensure interoperability, and
provide an easy reference for those who are implementing IPv6 in a provide an easy reference for those who are implementing IPv6 in a
cellular host. It is necessary to ensure that cellular hosts are cellular host. It is necessary to ensure that cellular hosts are
good citizens of the Internet. good citizens of the Internet.
This document is informational in its nature, and it is not intended This document is informational in its nature, and it is not intended
to replace, update, or contradict any IPv6 standards documents or the to replace, update, or contradict any IPv6 standards documents or the
IPv6 node requirements [RFC6434]. IPv6 Node Requirements [RFC6434].
This document is primarily targeted to the implementers of cellular This document is primarily targeted to the implementers of cellular
hosts that will be used with the cellular networks listed in the hosts that will be used with the cellular networks listed in this
scope. The document provides guidance on which IPv6 related document. This document provides guidance on which IPv6-related
specifications are to be implemented in such cellular hosts. Parts specifications are to be implemented in such cellular hosts. Parts
of this document may also apply to other cellular link types, but of this document may also apply to other cellular link types, but
this document does not provide any detailed analysis on other link this document does not provide any detailed analysis on other link
types. This document should not be used as a definitive list of IPv6 types. This document should not be used as a definitive list of IPv6
functionalies for cellular links other than those listed above. functionalities for cellular links other than those listed above.
Future changes in 3GPP networks that impact host implementations may Future changes in 3GPP networks that impact host implementations may
result in updates to this document. result in updates to this document.
There are different ways to implement cellular hosts: There are different ways to implement cellular hosts:
o The host can be a "closed" device with optimized build-in o The host can be a "closed" device with optimized built-in
applications, with no possibility to add or download applications applications, with no possibility to add or download applications
that can have IP communications. An example of such a host is a that can have IP communications. An example of such a host is a
very simple form of a mobile phone. very simple form of a mobile phone.
o The host can be an open device, e.g., a "smart phone" where it is o The host can be an open device, e.g., a "smart phone" where it is
possible to download applications to expand the functionality of possible to download applications to expand the functionality of
the device. the device.
o The cellular radio modem part can be separated from the host IP o The cellular radio modem part can be separated from the host IP
stack with an interface. One example of such host is a laptop stack with an interface. One example of such a host is a laptop
computer that uses a USB cellular modem for the cellular access. computer that uses a USB cellular modem for cellular access.
If a cellular host has additional IP capable interfaces, (such as If a cellular host has additional IP-capable interfaces (such as
Ethernet, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.) then there may be additional Ethernet, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.), then there may be additional
requirements for the device, beyond what is discussed in this requirements for the device, beyond what is discussed in this
document. Additionally, this document does not make any document. Additionally, this document does not make any
recommendations on the functionality required on laptop computers recommendations on the functionality required on laptop computers
having a cellular interface such as an embedded modem or a USB modem having a cellular interface such as an embedded modem or a USB modem
stick, other than recommending link specific behavior on the cellular stick, other than recommending link-specific behavior on the cellular
link. link.
This document discusses IPv6 functionality as of the time when this This document discusses IPv6 functionality as of the time when this
document has been written. Ongoing work on IPv6 may affect what is document was written. Ongoing work on IPv6 may affect what is
required of future hosts. required of future hosts.
Transition mechanisms used by cellular hosts are not in the scope of Transition mechanisms used by cellular hosts are not in the scope of
this document and are left for further study. The primary transition this document and are left for further study. The primary transition
mechanism supported by the 3GPP is dual-stack [RFC4213]. Dual-stack mechanism supported by 3GPP is dual-stack [RFC4213]. Dual-stack-
capable bearer support has been added to GPRS starting from the 3GPP capable bearer support has been added to GPRS starting from 3GPP
Release-9 and to EPS starting from the Release-8 [RFC6459], whereas Release-9 and to EPS starting from Release-8 [RFC6459], whereas the
the earlier 3GPP releases required multiple single IP version bearers earlier 3GPP releases required multiple single IP version bearers to
to support dual-stack. support dual-stack.
1.2. Abbreviations 1.2. Abbreviations
2G Second Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as GSM and 2G Second Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as Global
GPRS technologies. System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and GPRS technologies.
3G Third Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as UMTS 3G Third Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as UMTS
technology. technology.
4G Fourth Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as LTE 4G Fourth Generation Mobile Telecommunications, such as LTE
technology. technology.
3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project. Throughout the document,
the term 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) networks 3GPP Third Generation Partnership Project. Throughout the document,
refers to architectures standardized by 3GPP, in Second, Third the term "3GPP networks" refers to architectures standardized
and Fourth Generation releases: 99, 4, and 5, as well as future by 3GPP, in Second, Third, and Fourth Generation releases: 99,
releases. 4, and 5, as well as future releases.
APN Access Point Name. The APN is a logical name referring to a
GGSN and/or a PGW, and an external network.
EPC Evolved Packet Core.
EPS Evolved Packet System. EPS Evolved Packet System.
ESP Encapsulating Security Payload
GGSN Gateway GPRS Support Node (a default router for 3GPP IPv6 GGSN Gateway GPRS Support Node (a default router for 3GPP IPv6
cellular hosts in GPRS). cellular hosts in GPRS).
GPRS General Packet Radio Service. GPRS General Packet Radio Service.
LTE Long Term Evolution. LTE Long Term Evolution.
MT Mobile Terminal, for example, a mobile phone handset. MT Mobile Terminal, for example, a mobile phone handset.
MTU Maximum Transmission Unit. MTU Maximum Transmission Unit.
PDN Packet Data Network. PDN Packet Data Network.
PDP Packet Data Protocol. PDP Packet Data Protocol.
PGW Packet Data Network Gateway (the default router for 3GPP IPv6 PGW Packet Data Network Gateway (the default router for 3GPP IPv6
cellular hosts in EPS). cellular hosts in EPS).
SGW Serving Gateway. The user plane equivalent of an SGSN in EPS
(and the default router for 3GPP IPv6 cellular hosts when using SGW Serving Gateway (the user plane equivalent of a Serving GPRS
PMIPv6). Support Node (SGSN) in EPS (and the default router for 3GPP
IPv6 cellular hosts when using Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6))).
TE Terminal Equipment, for example, a laptop attached through a TE Terminal Equipment, for example, a laptop attached through a
3GPP handset. 3GPP handset.
UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System. UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System.
WLAN Wireless Local Area Network. WLAN Wireless Local Area Network.
1.3. Cellular Host IPv6 Features 1.3. Cellular Host IPv6 Features
This document lists IPv6 features for cellular hosts that are split This document lists IPv6 features for cellular hosts; these features
into three groups. are split into three groups and are discussed below.
Basic IP Basic IP
In this group, a list of the basic IPv6 features essential for In this group, the basic IPv6 features essential for cellular
cellular hosts are described. hosts are listed and described.
IP Security IP Security
In this group, the IP Security related parts are described. In this group, the parts related to IP Security are described.
Mobility Mobility
In this group, IP layer mobility issues are described. In this group, IP-layer mobility issues are described.
2. Basic IP 2. Basic IP
For most parts refer to the IPv6 Node Requirements document For most parts, refer to the IPv6 Node Requirements document
[RFC6434]. [RFC6434].
2.1. Internet Protocol Version 6 2.1. Internet Protocol Version 6
The Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) is specified in [RFC2460]. The Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is specified in [RFC2460].
This specification is a mandatory part of IPv6. A cellular host must This specification is a mandatory part of IPv6. A cellular host must
conform to the generic IPv6 Host Requirements [RFC6434], unless conform to the generic IPv6 host requirements [RFC6434], unless
specifically pointed out otherwise in this document. specifically pointed out otherwise in this document.
2.2. Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks 2.2. Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks
A cellular host must support Neighbor Solicitation and Neighbor A cellular host must support Neighbor Solicitation and Neighbor
Advertisement messages [RFC4861]. Some further notes on how these Advertisement messages [RFC4861]. Some further notes on how Neighbor
are applied in the particular type of an interface can be useful, Discovery is applied in the particular type of an interface can be
however: useful.
In 3GPP networks, some Neighbor Discovery messages can be unnecessary In 3GPP networks, some Neighbor Discovery messages can be unnecessary
in certain cases. GPRS, UMTS and EPS links resemble a point-to-point in certain cases. GPRS, UMTS, and EPS links resemble a point-to-
link; hence, the cellular host's only neighbor on the cellular link point link; hence, the cellular host's only neighbor on the cellular
is the default router that is already known through Router Discovery. link is the default router that is already known through Router
The cellular host always solicits for routers when the cellular Discovery. The cellular host always solicits for routers when the
interface is brought up (as described in [RFC4861], Section 6.3.7). cellular interface is brought up (as described in [RFC4861],
Section 6.3.7).
There are no link layer addresses on the 3GPP cellular link There are no link-layer addresses on the 3GPP cellular link
technology. Therefore, address resolution and next-hop determination technology. Therefore, address resolution and next-hop determination
are not needed. If the cellular host still attempts to do the are not needed. If the cellular host still attempts to do address
address resolution e.g., for the default router, it must be resolution, e.g., for the default router, it must be understood that
understood that the GGSN/PGW may not even answer the address the GGSN/PGW may not even answer the address resolution Neighbor
resolution Neighbor Solicitations. And even if it does, the Neighbor Solicitations. And even if it does, the Neighbor Advertisement is
Advertisement is unlikely to contain the Target link-layer address unlikely to contain the Target link-layer address option as there are
option as there are no link-layer addresses on the 3GPP cellular link no link-layer addresses on the 3GPP cellular link technology.
technology.
The cellular host must support Neighbor Unreachability Detection The cellular host must support Neighbor Unreachability Detection
(NUD) as specified in [RFC4861]. Note that the link-layer address (NUD) as specified in [RFC4861]. Note that the link-layer address
considerations above also apply to the NUD. The NUD triggered considerations above also apply to NUD. The NUD-triggered Neighbor
Neighbor Advertisement is also unlikely to contain the Target link- Advertisement is also unlikely to contain the Target link-layer
layer address option as there are no link-layer addresses. The address option as there are no link-layer addresses. The cellular
cellular host should also be prepared for a router (i.e., GGSN/PGW) host should also be prepared for NUD initiated by a router (i.e.,
initiated NUD. However, it is unlikely a router to host NUD should GGSN/PGW). However, it is unlikely a router-to-host NUD would ever
ever take place on a GPRS, UMTS and EPS links. See Appendix A for take place on GPRS, UMTS, or EPS links. See Appendix A for more
more discussion on the router to host NUD. discussion on the router-to-host NUD.
In 3GPP networks, it is desirable to reduce any additional periodic In 3GPP networks, it is desirable to reduce any additional periodic
signaling. Therefore, the cellular host should include a mechanism signaling. Therefore, the cellular host should include a mechanism
in upper layer protocols to provide reachability confirmations when in upper-layer protocols to provide reachability confirmations when
two-way IP layer reachability can be confirmed (see [RFC4861], two-way IP-layer reachability can be confirmed (see [RFC4861],
Section 7.3.1). These confirmations would allow the suppression of Section 7.3.1). These confirmations would allow the suppression of
NUD-related messages in most cases. NUD-related messages in most cases.
Host TCP implementation should provide reachability confirmation in Host TCP implementation should provide reachability confirmation in
the manner explained in [RFC4861], Section 7.3.1. the manner explained in [RFC4861], Section 7.3.1.
The widespread use of UDP in 3GPP networks poses a problem for The widespread use of UDP in 3GPP networks poses a problem for
providing reachability confirmation. As UDP itself is unable to providing reachability confirmation. As UDP itself is unable to
provide such confirmation, applications running on top of UDP should provide such confirmation, applications running on top of UDP should
provide the confirmation where possible. In particular, when UDP is provide the confirmation where possible. In particular, when UDP is
used for transporting DNS, the DNS response should be used as a basis used for transporting DNS, the DNS response should be used as a basis
for reachability confirmation. Similarly, when UDP is used to for reachability confirmation. Similarly, when UDP is used to
transport RTP, the RTCP protocol feedback should be used as a basis transport RTP [RFC3550], the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) [RFC3550]
for the reachability confirmation. If an RTCP packet is received feedback should be used as a basis for the reachability confirmation.
with a reception report block indicating some packets have gone If an RTCP packet is received with a reception report block
through, then packets are reaching the peer. If they have reached indicating some packets have gone through, then packets are reaching
the peer, they have also reached the neighbor. the peer. If they have reached the peer, they have also reached the
neighbor.
When UDP is used for transporting SIP, responses to SIP requests When UDP is used for transporting SIP [RFC3261], responses to SIP
should be used as the confirmation that packets sent to the peer are requests should be used as the confirmation that packets sent to the
reaching it. When the cellular host is acting as the server side SIP peer are reaching it. When the cellular host is acting as the
node, no such confirmation is generally available. However, a host server-side SIP node, no such confirmation is generally available.
may interpret the receipt of a SIP ACK request as confirmation that However, a host may interpret the receipt of a SIP ACK request as
the previously sent response to a SIP INVITE request has reached the confirmation that the previously sent response to a SIP INVITE
peer. request has reached the peer.
2.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration 2.3. Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC4862]. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is defined in [RFC4862].
This specification is a mandatory part of IPv6 and also the only This specification is a mandatory part of IPv6 and also the only
mandatory method to configure an IPv6 address in a 3GPP cellular mandatory method to configure an IPv6 address in a 3GPP cellular
host. host.
A cellular host in a 3GPP network must process a Router Advertisement A cellular host in a 3GPP network must process a Router Advertisement
as stated in [RFC4862]. The Router Advertisement contains a maximum as stated in [RFC4862]. The Router Advertisement contains a maximum
of one prefix information option with lifetimes set to infinite (both of one prefix information option with lifetimes set to infinite (both
valid and preferred lifetimes). The advertised prefix cannot ever be valid and preferred lifetimes). The advertised prefix cannot ever be
used for on-link determination (see [RFC6459], Section 5.2) and the used for on-link determination (see [RFC6459], Section 5.2), and the
lifetime of the advertised prefix is tied to the PDP Context/PDN lifetime of the advertised prefix is tied to the PDP Context/PDN
Connection lifetime. Keeping the forward compatibility in mind there Connection lifetime. Keeping the forward compatibility in mind,
is no reason for the 3GPP cellular host to have 3GPP specific there is no reason for the 3GPP cellular host to have 3GPP-specific
handling of the prefix information option(s) although 3GPP handling of the prefix information option(s) although 3GPP
specifications state that the Router Advertisement may contain a specifications state that the Router Advertisement may contain a
maximum of one prefix information option and the lifetimes are set to maximum of one prefix information option and the lifetimes are set to
infinite. infinite.
Hosts in 3GPP networks can set DupAddrDetectTransmits equal to zero, Hosts in 3GPP networks can set DupAddrDetectTransmits equal to zero,
as each assigned prefix is unique within its scope when advertised as each assigned prefix is unique within its scope when advertised
using the 3GPP IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. In using 3GPP IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. In addition,
addition, the default router (GGSN/PGW) will not configure any the default router (GGSN/PGW) will not configure any addresses on its
addresses on its interfaces based on prefixes advertised to IPv6 interfaces based on prefixes advertised to IPv6 cellular hosts on
cellular hosts on those interfaces. Thus, the host is not required those interfaces. Thus, the host is not required to perform
to perform Duplicate Address Detection on the cellular interface. Duplicate Address Detection on the cellular interface.
Furthermore, the GGSN/PGW will provide the cellular host with an Furthermore, the GGSN/PGW will provide the cellular host with an
interface identifier that must be used for link-local address interface identifier that must be used for link-local address
configuration. The link-local address configured from this interface configuration. The link-local address configured from this interface
identifier is guaranteed not to collide with the link-local address identifier is guaranteed not to collide with the link-local address
that the GGSN/PGW uses. Thus, the cellular host is not required to that the GGSN/PGW uses. Thus, the cellular host is not required to
perform Duplicate Address Detection for the link-local address on the perform Duplicate Address Detection for the link-local address on the
cellular interface. cellular interface.
See Appendix A for more details on 3GPP IPv6 Stateless Address See Appendix A for more details on 3GPP IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration. Autoconfiguration.
2.4. IP version 6 over PPP 2.4. IP Version 6 over PPP
A cellular host in a 3GPP network that supports PPP on the interface A cellular host in a 3GPP network that supports PPP [RFC1661] on the
between the MT and the TE, must support the IPv6CP interface interface between the MT and the TE must support the IPv6 Control
identifier option. This option is needed to be able to connect other Protocol (IPV6CP) [RFC5072] interface identifier option. This option
devices to the Internet using a PPP link between the cellular device is needed to be able to connect other devices to the Internet using a
(MT, e.g., a USB dongle) and other devices (TE, e.g., a laptop). The PPP link between the cellular device (MT, e.g., a USB dongle) and
MT performs the PDP Context activation based on a request from the other devices (TE, e.g., a laptop). The MT performs the PDP Context
TE. This results in an interface identifier being suggested by the activation based on a request from the TE. This results in an
MT to the TE, using the IPv6CP option. To avoid any duplication in interface identifier being suggested by the MT to the TE, using the
link-local addresses between the TE and the GGSN/PGW, the MT must IPV6CP option. To avoid any duplication in link-local addresses
always reject other suggested interface identifiers by the TE. This between the TE and the GGSN/PGW, the MT must always reject other
results in the TE always using the interface identifier suggested by suggested interface identifiers by the TE. This results in the TE
the GGSN/PGW for its link-local address. always using the interface identifier suggested by the GGSN/PGW for
its link-local address.
The rejection of interface identifiers suggested by the TE is only The rejection of interface identifiers suggested by the TE is only
done for creation of link-local addresses, according to 3GPP done for creation of link-local addresses, according to 3GPP
specifications. The use of privacy addresses [RFC4941] or similar specifications. The use of privacy addresses [RFC4941] or similar
technologies for unique local IPv6 unicast addresses (ULA) [RFC4193] technologies for unique local IPv6 unicast addresses [RFC4193] and
and global addresses is not affected by the above procedure. global addresses is not affected by the above procedure.
2.5. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6 2.5. Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
Within 3GPP networks, hosts connect to their default routers (GGSN/ Within 3GPP networks, hosts connect to their default routers
PGW) via point-to-point links. Moreover, there are exactly two IP (GGSN/PGW) via point-to-point links. Moreover, there are exactly two
devices connected to the point-to-point link, and no attempt is made IP devices connected to the point-to-point link, and no attempt is
(at the link-layer) to suppress the forwarding of multicast traffic. made (at the link layer) to suppress the forwarding of multicast
Consequently, sending MLD reports for link-local addresses in a 3GPP traffic. Consequently, sending MLD reports for link-local addresses
environment is not necessary, although sending those cause no harm or in a 3GPP environment is not necessary, although sending them causes
interoperability issues. no harm or interoperability issues. Refer to Section 5.10 of
[RFC6434] for MLD usage for multicast group knowledge that is not
MLD is needed for multicast group knowledge that is not link-local. link-local.
2.6. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 2.6. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941] Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
or other similar technologies may be supported by a cellular host. or other similar technologies may be supported by a cellular host.
Privacy in general, is important for the Internet. In 3GPP networks Privacy, in general, is important for the Internet. In 3GPP
the lifetime of an address assignment depends on many factors such as networks, the lifetime of an address assignment depends on many
radio coverage, device status and user preferences. As a result also factors such as radio coverage, device status, and user preferences.
the prefix the cellular host uses is a subject to frequent changes. As a result, the prefix the cellular host uses is also subject to
frequent changes.
Refer to Section 7 for a discussion of the benefits of privacy Refer to Section 6 for a discussion of the benefits of Privacy
extensions in a 3GPP network. Extensions in a 3GPP network.
2.7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 2.7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
As of 3GPP Release-11 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for As of 3GPP Release-11, the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] is neither required nor supported for address IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] is neither required nor supported for address
autoconfiguration. The IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration still autoconfiguration. IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration still
remains the only mandatory address configuration method. However, remains the only mandatory address configuration method. However,
DHCPv6 may be useful for other configuration needs on a cellular DHCPv6 may be useful for other configuration needs on a cellular
host. e.g. Stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736] may be used to configure DNS host, e.g., Stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736] may be used to configure DNS
and SIP server addresses, and DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633] may and SIP server addresses, and DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] may
be used to delegate a prefix to the cellular host for use on its be used to delegate a prefix to the cellular host for use on its
downstream non-cellular links. downstream non-cellular links.
2.8. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation 2.8. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
Starting from Release-10 DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation was added as an Starting from Release-10, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation was added as an
optional feature to the 3GPP system architecture [RFC3633]. The optional feature to the 3GPP system architecture [RFC3633]. The
prefix delegation model defined for Release-10 requires that the /64 Prefix Delegation model defined for Release-10 requires that the /64
IPv6 prefix assigned to the cellular host on the 3GPP link must IPv6 prefix assigned to the cellular host on the 3GPP link must
aggregate with the shorter delegated IPv6 prefix. The cellular host aggregate with the shorter delegated IPv6 prefix. The cellular host
should implement the Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6 Prefix should implement the Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation [RFC6603] (see [RFC6459], Section 5.3 for further Delegation [RFC6603] (see [RFC6459], Section 5.3 for further
discussion). discussion).
2.9. Router preferences and more specific routes 2.9. Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes
The cellular host should implement the Default Router Preferences and The cellular host should implement the Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes extension to Router Advertisement messages More-Specific Routes extension to Router Advertisement messages
[RFC4191]. These options may be useful for cellular hosts that also [RFC4191]. These options may be useful for cellular hosts that also
have additional interfaces on which IPv6 is used. have additional interfaces on which IPv6 is used.
2.10. Neighbor Discovery and additional host configuration 2.10. Neighbor Discovery and Additional Host Configuration
The DNS server configuration is learned from the 3GPP link layer The DNS server configuration is learned from the 3GPP link-layer
signaling. However, the cellular host should also implement the IPv6 signaling. However, the cellular host should also implement the IPv6
Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration [RFC6106]. DHCPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration [RFC6106]. DHCPv6
is still optional for cellular hosts, and learning the DNS server is still optional for cellular hosts, and learning the DNS server
addresses from the link layer signaling can be cumbersome when the MT addresses from the link-layer signaling can be cumbersome when the MT
and the TE are separated using other techniques than PPP interface. and the TE are separated using techniques other than the PPP
interface.
The cellular host should also honor the MTU option in the Router The cellular host should also honor the MTU option in the Router
Advertisement (see [RFC4861], Section 4.6.4). 3GPP system Advertisement (see [RFC4861], Section 4.6.4). The 3GPP system
architecture uses extensive tunneling in its packet core network architecture uses extensive tunneling in its packet core network
below the 3GPP link and this may lead to packet fragmentation issues. below the 3GPP link, and this may lead to packet fragmentation
Therefore, the GGSN/PGW may propose a MTU to the cellular host that issues. Therefore, the GGSN/PGW may propose to the cellular host an
takes the additional tunneling overhead into account. MTU that takes the additional tunneling overhead into account.
3. IP Security 3. IP Security
IPsec [RFC4301] is a fundamental but not mandatory part of IPv6. IPsec [RFC4301] is a fundamental, but not mandatory, part of IPv6.
Refer to the IPv6 Node Requirements Section 11 of [RFC6434] for the Refer to the IPv6 Node Requirements (Section 11 of [RFC6434]) for the
security requirements that also apply to cellular hosts. security requirements that also apply to cellular hosts.
3.1. Extension header considerations 3.1. Extension Header Considerations
The support for the Routing Header Type 0 (RH0) has been deprecated Support for the Routing Header Type 0 (RH0) has been deprecated
[RFC5095]. Therefore, the cellular host should as a default setting [RFC5095]. Therefore, the cellular host should by default follow the
follow the RH0 processing described in Section 3 of RFC 5095. RH0 processing described in Section 3 of [RFC5095].
IPv6 packet fragmentation has known security concerns. The cellular IPv6 packet fragmentation has known security concerns. The cellular
host must follow the handling of overlapping fragments as described host must follow the handling of overlapping fragments as described
in [RFC5722] and the cellular host must not fragment any neighbor in [RFC5722], and the cellular host must not fragment any Neighbor
discovery messages as described in Discovery messages as described in [RFC6980].
[I-D.ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers].
4. Mobility 4. Mobility
For the purposes of this document, IP mobility is not relevant. The For the purposes of this document, IP mobility is not relevant. The
movement of cellular hosts within 3GPP networks is handled by link movement of cellular hosts within 3GPP networks is handled by link-
layer mechanisms in majority of cases. 3GPP Release-8 introduced the layer mechanisms in the majority of cases. 3GPP Release-8 introduced
dual-stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) for a client based mobility Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) for client-based mobility [RFC5555].
[RFC5555]. Client based IP mobility is optional in 3GPP Client-based IP mobility is optional in the 3GPP architecture.
architecture.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the original authors for their The authors would like to thank the original authors for their
grounding work on this documents: Gerben Kuijpers, John Loughney, groundwork for this document: Gerben Kuijpers, John Loughney, Hesham
Hesham Soliman and Juha Wiljakka. Soliman, and Juha Wiljakka.
The original RFC 3316 document was based on the results of a team The original [RFC3316] document was based on the results of a team
that included Peter Hedman and Pertti Suomela in addition to the that included Peter Hedman and Pertti Suomela in addition to the
authors. Peter and Pertti have contributed both text and their IPv6 authors. Peter and Pertti have contributed both text and their IPv6
experience to this document. experience to this document.
The authors would like to thank Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Steve The authors would like to thank Jim Bound, Brian Carpenter, Steve
Deering, Bob Hinden, Keith Moore, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Deering, Bob Hinden, Keith Moore, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark,
Michael Thomas, Margaret Wasserman and others at the IPv6 WG mailing Michael Thomas, Margaret Wasserman, and others on the IPv6 WG mailing
list for their comments and input. list for their comments and input.
We would also like to thank David DeCamp, Karim El Malki, Markus We would also like to thank David DeCamp, Karim El Malki, Markus
Isomaki, Petter Johnsen, Janne Rinne, Jonne Soininen, Vlad Stirbu and Isomaki, Petter Johnsen, Janne Rinne, Jonne Soininen, Vlad Stirbu,
Shabnam Sultana for their comments and input in preparation of this and Shabnam Sultana for their comments and input in preparation of
document. this document.
For the revised version of the RFC 3316 the authors would like thank For this revised version of [RFC3316] the authors would like to thank
Dave Thaler, Ales Vizdal, Gang Chen, Ray Hunter and Owen DeLong for Dave Thaler, Ales Vizdal, Gang Chen, Ray Hunter, Charlie Kaufman,
their comments, reviews and inputs. Owen DeLong, and Alexey Melnikov for their comments, reviews, and
input.
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not specify any new protocols or functionalities, This document does not specify any new protocols or functionalities,
and as such, it does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities. and as such, it does not introduce any new security vulnerabilities.
However, specific profiles of IPv6 functionality are proposed for However, specific profiles of IPv6 functionality are proposed for
different situations, and vulnerabilities may open or close depending different situations, and vulnerabilities may open or close depending
on which functionality is included and what is not. There are also on which functionality is included and what is not. There are also
aspects of the cellular environment that make certain types of aspects of the cellular environment that make certain types of
vulnerabilities more severe. The following issues are discussed: vulnerabilities more severe. The following issues are discussed:
o The suggested limitations (Section 3.1) in the processing of o The suggested limitations (Section 3.1) in the processing of
extension headers limits also exposure to Denial-of-Service (DoS) extension headers also limits exposure to Denial-of-Service (DoS)
attacks through cellular hosts. attacks through cellular hosts.
o IPv6 addressing privacy [RFC4941] or similar technology may be o IPv6 addressing privacy [RFC4941] or similar technology may be
used in cellular hosts. However, it should be noted that in the used in cellular hosts. However, it should be noted that in the
3GPP model, the network would assign a new prefix, in most cases, 3GPP model, the network would assign a new prefix, in most cases,
to hosts in roaming situations and typically, also when the to hosts in roaming situations; the network would also typically
cellular hosts activate a PDP Context or a PDN Connection. This assign a new prefix when the cellular hosts activate a PDP Context
means that 3GPP networks will already provide a limited form of or a PDN Connection. 3GPP devices must not use interface
addressing privacy, and no global tracking of a single host is identifiers that are unique to the device, so the only difference
possible through its address. On the other hand, since a GGSN/ in address between 3GPP devices using Stateless Address
PGW's coverage area is expected to be very large when compared to Autoconfiguration is in the prefix. This means that 3GPP networks
currently deployed default routers (no handovers between GGSN/PGWs will already provide a limited form of addressing privacy, and no
are possible), a cellular host can keep a prefix for a long time. global tracking of a single host is possible through its address.
Hence, IPv6 addressing privacy can be used for additional privacy On the other hand, since a GGSN/PGW's coverage area is expected to
during the time the host is on and in the same area. The privacy be very large when compared to currently deployed default routers
features can also be used to e.g., make different transport (no handovers between GGSN/PGWs are possible), a cellular host can
sessions appear to come from different IP addresses. However, it keep a prefix for a long time. Hence, IPv6 addressing privacy can
is not clear that these additional efforts confuse potential be used for additional privacy during the time the host is on and
observers any further, as they could monitor only the network in the same area. The privacy features can also be used to, e.g.,
prefix part. make different transport sessions appear to come from different IP
o The use of various security services such as IPsec or TLS in the addresses. However, it is not clear that these additional efforts
connection of typical applications in cellular hosts is discussed confuse potential observers any further, as they could monitor
in Section 3 and further pointer for recommendations are given only the network prefix part.
there.
o The use and recommendations of various security services such as
IPsec or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] in the
connection of typical applications that also apply to cellular
hosts are discussed in Section 11 of [RFC6434].
o The airtime used by cellular hosts is expensive. In some cases, o The airtime used by cellular hosts is expensive. In some cases,
users are billed according to the amount of data they transfer to users are billed according to the amount of data they transfer to
and from their host. It is crucial for both the network and the and from their host. It is crucial for both the network and the
users that the airtime is used correctly and no extra charges are users that the airtime is used correctly and no extra charges are
applied to users due to misbehaving third parties. The cellular applied to users due to misbehaving third parties. The cellular
links also have a limited capacity, which means that they may not links also have a limited capacity, which means that they may not
necessarily be able to accommodate more traffic than what the user necessarily be able to accommodate more traffic than what the user
selected, such as a multimedia call. Additional traffic might selected, such as a multimedia call. Additional traffic might
interfere with the service level experienced by the user. While interfere with the service level experienced by the user. While
Quality of Service mechanisms mitigate these problems to an Quality-of-Service mechanisms mitigate these problems to an
extent, it is still apparent that DoS aspects may be highlighted extent, it is still apparent that DoS aspects may be highlighted
in the cellular environment. It is possible for existing DoS in the cellular environment. It is possible for existing DoS
attacks that use for instance packet amplification to be attacks that use, for instance, packet amplification, to be
substantially more damaging in this environment. How these substantially more damaging in this environment. How these
attacks can be protected against is still an area of further attacks can be protected against is still an area for further
study. It is also often easy to fill the cellular link and queues study. It is also often easy to fill the cellular link and queues
on both sides with additional or large packets. on both sides with additional or large packets.
o Within some service provider networks, it is possible to buy a o Within some service provider networks, it is possible to buy a
prepaid cellular subscription without presenting personal prepaid cellular subscription without presenting personal
identification. Attackers that wish to remain unidentified could identification. Attackers that wish to remain unidentified could
leverage this. Note that while the user hasn't been identified, leverage this. Note that while the user hasn't been identified,
the equipment still is; the operators can follow the identity of the equipment still is; the operators can follow the identity of
the device and block it from further use. The operators must have the device and block it from further use. The operators must have
procedures in place to take notice of third party complaints procedures in place to take notice of third party complaints
regarding the use of their customers' devices. It may also be regarding the use of their customers' devices. It may also be
necessary for the operators to have attack detection tools that necessary for the operators to have attack detection tools that
enable them to efficiently detect attacks launched from the enable them to efficiently detect attacks launched from the
skipping to change at page 14, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 34
prepaid cellular subscription without presenting personal prepaid cellular subscription without presenting personal
identification. Attackers that wish to remain unidentified could identification. Attackers that wish to remain unidentified could
leverage this. Note that while the user hasn't been identified, leverage this. Note that while the user hasn't been identified,
the equipment still is; the operators can follow the identity of the equipment still is; the operators can follow the identity of
the device and block it from further use. The operators must have the device and block it from further use. The operators must have
procedures in place to take notice of third party complaints procedures in place to take notice of third party complaints
regarding the use of their customers' devices. It may also be regarding the use of their customers' devices. It may also be
necessary for the operators to have attack detection tools that necessary for the operators to have attack detection tools that
enable them to efficiently detect attacks launched from the enable them to efficiently detect attacks launched from the
cellular hosts. cellular hosts.
o Cellular devices that have local network interfaces (such as WLAN o Cellular devices that have local network interfaces (such as WLAN
or Bluetooth) may be used to launch attacks through them, unless or Bluetooth) may be used to launch attacks through them, unless
the local interfaces are secured in an appropriate manner. the local interfaces are secured in an appropriate manner.
Therefore, local network interfaces should have access control to Therefore, local network interfaces should have access control to
prevent others from using the cellular host as an intermediary. prevent others from using the cellular host as an intermediary.
o The 3GPP link model mitigates most of the known IPv6 on-link and o The 3GPP link model mitigates most of the known IPv6 on-link and
neighbor cache targeted attacks (see Section 2.2 and Appendix A). neighbor cache targeted attacks (see Section 2.2 and Appendix A).
o Advice for implementations in the face of Neighbor Discovery DoS o Advice for implementations in the face of Neighbor Discovery DoS
attacks may be useful in some environments [RFC6583]. attacks may be useful in some environments [RFC6583].
o Section 9 of RFC 6459 discusses further some recent concerns
related to cellular hosts security.
8. References o Section 9 of [RFC6459] further discusses some recent concerns
related to the security of cellular hosts.
8.1. Normative references 7. References
[I-D.ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers] 7.1. Normative References
Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery",
draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-04 (work in
progress), March 2013.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
October 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
December 2007. December 2007.
[RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments", [RFC5722] Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6 Fragments",
RFC 5722, December 2009. RFC 5722, December 2009.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node [RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011. Requirements", RFC 6434, December 2011.
8.2. Informative references [RFC6980] Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980, August 2013.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 7.2. Informative References
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic [RFC1661] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, RFC 1661, July 1994.
December 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005. and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [RFC3316] Arkko, J., Kuijpers, G., Soliman, H., Loughney, J., and
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. J. Wiljakka, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for
Some Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts",
RFC 3316, April 2003.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
RFC 6106, November 2010. December 2003.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, January 2012.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, March 2012. More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan, [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
"Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012.
[TS.23060] [RFC5072] Varada, S., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 23.060 11.5.0, March 2013.
[TS.23401] [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 11.5.0, March 2013.
[TS.23402] [RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts
3GPP, "Architectural enhancements for non-3GPP accesses", and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
3GPP TS 23.402 11.6.0, March 2013.
[TS.29061] [RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
3GPP, "Interworking between the Public Land Mobile Network "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
(PLMN) supporting packet based services and Packet Data Configuration", RFC 6106, November 2010.
Networks (PDN)", 3GPP TS 29.061 11.4.0, March 2013.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T.,
Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, January 2012.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, March 2012.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O. Troan,
"Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
Delegation", RFC 6603, May 2012.
[TS.23060] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
description; Stage 2", 3GPP TS 23.060 11.5.0, March 2013.
[TS.23401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 11.5.0, March 2013.
[TS.23402] 3GPP, "Architectural enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
3GPP TS 23.402 11.6.0, March 2013.
[TS.29061] 3GPP, "Interworking between the Public Land Mobile
Network (PLMN) supporting packet based services and
Packet Data Networks (PDN)", 3GPP TS 29.061 11.4.0,
March 2013.
Appendix A. Cellular Host IPv6 Addressing in the 3GPP Model Appendix A. Cellular Host IPv6 Addressing in the 3GPP Model
The appendix aims to very briefly describe the 3GPP IPv6 addressing This appendix aims to very briefly describe the 3GPP IPv6 addressing
model for 2G (GPRS), 3G (UMTS) and 4G (EPS) cellular networks from model for 2G (GPRS), 3G (UMTS), and 4G (EPS) cellular networks from
Release-99 onwards. More information for 2G and 3G can be found from Release-99 onwards. More information for 2G and 3G can be found in
3GPP Technical Specifications [TS.23060] and [TS.29061]. The 3GPP Technical Specifications [TS.23060] and [TS.29061]. The
equivalent documentation for 4G can be found from 3GPP Technical equivalent documentation for 4G can be found in 3GPP Technical
Specifications [TS.23401], [TS.23402] and [TS.29061]. Specifications [TS.23401], [TS.23402], and [TS.29061].
There are two possibilities to allocate the address for an IPv6 node: There are two possibilities to allocate the address for an IPv6 node:
stateless and stateful autoconfiguration. The stateful address stateless and stateful autoconfiguration. The stateful address
allocation mechanism needs a DHCP server to allocate the address for allocation mechanism needs a DHCP server to allocate the address for
the IPv6 node. On the other hand, the stateless autoconfiguration the IPv6 node. On the other hand, the Stateless Address
procedure does not need any external entity involved in the address Autoconfiguration procedure does not need any external entity
autoconfiguration (apart from the GGSN/PGW). At the time of writing involved in the address autoconfiguration (apart from the GGSN/PGW).
this document, the IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration mechanism At the time of writing this document, the IPv6 Stateless Address
is still the only mandatory and supported address configuration Autoconfiguration mechanism is still the only mandatory and supported
method for the cellular 3GPP link. address configuration method for the cellular 3GPP link.
In order to support the standard IPv6 stateless address In order to support the standard IPv6 Stateless Address
autoconfiguration mechanism as recommended by the IETF, the GGSN/PGW Autoconfiguration mechanism as recommended by the IETF, the GGSN/PGW
shall assign a single /64 IPv6 prefix that is unique within its scope shall assign a single /64 IPv6 prefix that is unique within its scope
to each primary PDP Context or PDN Connection that uses IPv6 to each primary PDP Context or PDN Connection that uses IPv6
stateless address autoconfiguration. This avoids the necessity to Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. This avoids the necessity to
perform Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) at the network level for perform Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) at the network level for
any address built by the mobile host. The GGSN/PGW always provides any address built by the mobile host. The GGSN/PGW always provides
an interface identifier to the mobile host. The Mobile host uses the an interface identifier to the mobile host. The mobile host uses the
interface identifier provided by the GGSN/PGW to generate its link- interface identifier provided by the GGSN/PGW to generate its link-
local address. The GGSN/PGW provides the cellular host with the local address. The GGSN/PGW provides the cellular host with the
interface identifier, usually in a random manner. It must ensure the interface identifier, usually in a random manner. It must ensure the
uniqueness of such identifier on the link (i.e., no collisions uniqueness of such an identifier on the link (i.e., no collisions
between its own link-local address and the cellular host's). between its own link-local address and the cellular host's).
In addition, the GGSN/PGW will not use any of the prefixes assigned In addition, the GGSN/PGW will not use any of the prefixes assigned
to cellular hosts to generate any of its own addresses. This use of to cellular hosts to generate any of its own addresses. This use of
the interface identifier, combined with the fact that each PDP the interface identifier, combined with the fact that each PDP
Context or PDN Connection is allocated a unique prefix, will Context or PDN Connection is allocated a unique prefix, will
eliminate the need for DAD messages over the air interface, and eliminate the need for DAD messages over the air interface and
consequently reduces inefficient use of radio resources. consequently reduces inefficient use of radio resources.
Furthermore, the allocation of a prefix to each PDP Context or PDN Furthermore, the allocation of a prefix to each PDP Context or PDN
Connection will allow hosts to implement the Privacy Extensions in Connection will allow hosts to implement the Privacy Extensions in
[RFC4941] without the need for further DAD messages. [RFC4941] without the need for further DAD messages.
In practice, the GGSN/PGW only needs to route all traffic destined to In practice, the GGSN/PGW only needs to route all traffic destined to
the cellular host that falls under the prefix assigned to it. This the cellular host that falls under the prefix assigned to it. This
implies the GGSN/PGW may implement a minimal neighbor discovery implies the GGSN/PGW may implement a minimal Neighbor Discovery
protocol subset; since, due the point-to-point link model and the protocol subset since, due to the point-to-point link model and the
absence of link-layer addressing the address resolution can be absence of link-layer addressing, the address resolution can be
entirely statically configured per PDP Context or PDN Connection, and entirely statically configured per PDP Context or PDN Connection, and
there is no need to defend any other address than the link-local there is no need to defend any addresses other than the link-local
address for very unlikely duplicates. This has also an additional addresses for very unlikely duplicates. This also has an additional
effect on a router to host NUD. There is really no need for it, effect on a router-to-host NUD. There is really no need for the NUD,
since from the GGSN/PGW point of view it does not need to care for a since from the point of view of GGSN/PGW, GGSN/PGW does not need to
single address, just routes the whole prefix to the cellular host. care for a single address but just routes the whole prefix to the
However, the cellular host must be prepared for the unlikely event of cellular host. However, the cellular host must be prepared for the
receiving a NUD against its link-local address. It should be noted unlikely event of receiving a NUD against its link-local address. It
that the 3GPP specifications at the time of writing this document are should be noted that the 3GPP specifications at the time of writing
silent what should happen if the router to host NUD fails. this document are silent about what should happen if the router-to-
host NUD fails.
See Sections 5 of [RFC6459] for further discussion on 3GPP address See Section 5 of [RFC6459] for further discussion on 3GPP address
allocation and link model. allocation and the 3GPP link model.
Appendix B. Changes to RFC 3316 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 3316
B.1. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03 o Clarified that [RFC4941] or similar technologies may be used for
privacy purposes (as stated in [RFC6459]).
o Clarified that RFC4941 or similar technologies instead of plain o Clarified that MLD for link-local addresses is not necessary, but
RFC4941 may be used for privacy purposes (as stated in RFC6459). doing it causes no harm (instead of saying it may not be needed in
o Clarified that MLD for link-local addresses is not necessary but
doing it causes no hard (instead of saying it may not be needed in
some cases). some cases).
o Clarified that a cellular host should not do any changes in its o Clarified that a cellular host should not do any changes in its
stack to meet the 3GPP link restriction on the RA PIO options. stack to meet the 3GPP link restriction on the Router
Advertisement Prefix Information Options (PIOs).
o Clarified that a cellular host should not do any changes in its o Clarified that a cellular host should not do any changes in its
stack to meet the infinite prefix lifetime requirement the 3GPP stack to meet the infinite prefix lifetime requirement the 3GPP
link has. link has.
o Clarified that the prefix lifetime is tied to the PDP Context/PDN o Clarified that the prefix lifetime is tied to the PDP Context/PDN
Connection lifetime. Connection lifetime.
o Implemented numerous WGLC #1 comments.
B.2. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-02 o Clarified explicitly that a NUD from the gateway side to the User
Equipment's link-local address is possible.
o Clarified explicitly that a NUD from the gateway side to the UE's
link-local address is possible.
o Added references to 3GPP specifications. o Added references to 3GPP specifications.
B.3. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-01 o Provided additional clarification on NUD on 3GPP cellular links.
o Additional clarification on NUD on 3GPP cellular links.
o Added an explicit note that the prefix on the link is /64. o Added an explicit note that the prefix on the link is /64.
o Clarified that DHCPv6 (RFC3315) is not used at all for address
o Clarified that DHCPv6 ([RFC3315]) is not used at all for address
autoconfiguration. autoconfiguration.
B.4. Version draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-00 o Removed all sections that can be directly found in [RFC6434].
o Removal of all sections that can be directly found from RFC 6434. o Added clarifications to 3GPP link model and how Neighbor Discovery
o Clarifications to 3GPP link model and how Neighbor Discovery works works on it.
on it.
o Addition of RFC 4191 recommendations. o Added [RFC4191] recommendations.
o Addition of DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation recommendations.
o Addition of RFC 6106 recommendations. o Added DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation recommendations.
o Addition of RFC 5555 regarding client based mobility.
o Addition of Router Advertisement MTU option handling. o Added [RFC6106] recommendations.
o Addition of Evolved Packet System text.
o Clarification on the primary 3GPP IPv6 transition mechanism. o Added reference to [RFC5555] regarding client-based mobility.
o Addition of RFC 5095 that deprecates the RH0
o Addition of RFC 5722 and draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers o Added text regarding Router Advertisement MTU option handling.
regarding the IPv6 fragmentation handling.
o Addition of RFC 6583 for Neighbor Discovery denial-of-service o Added Evolved Packet System text.
attack considerations.
o Made the PPP IPV6CP support text conditional. o Added clarification on the primary 3GPP IPv6 transition mechanism.
o Added reference to [RFC5095], which deprecates the RH0.
o Added references to [RFC5722] and [RFC6980] regarding IPv6
fragmentation handling.
o Added reference to [RFC6583] for Neighbor Discovery denial-of-
service attack considerations.
o Made the PPP IPV6CP [RFC5072] support text conditional.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jouni Korhonen (editor) Jouni Korhonen (editor)
Renesas Mobile Broadcom
Porkkalankatu 24 Porkkalankatu 24
FIN-00180 Helsinki FIN-00180 Helsinki
Finland Finland
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Jari Arkko (editor) Jari Arkko (editor)
Ericsson Ericsson
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
Finland Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Teemu Savolainen Teemu Savolainen
Nokia Nokia
Hermiankatu 12 D Hermiankatu 12 D
FI-33720 Tampere FI-33720 Tampere
FINLAND Finland
Email: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com EMail: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
Suresh Krishnan Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd. 8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada Canada
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871 Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 157 change blocks. 
392 lines changed or deleted 438 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/