idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits51393/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 21, 2018) is 1308 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'This-Document' is mentioned on line 200, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Boucadair 3 Internet-Draft Orange 4 Updates: 7296 (if approved) October 21, 2018 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: April 24, 2019 8 IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence 9 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage 14 IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence. 16 This document updates RFC7296. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 1. Introduction 66 As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network 67 configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the 68 cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN 69 for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership 70 Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet 71 Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause 72 codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned: 74 o cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed": This cause code is used by 75 the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv4 is allowed for the 76 requested Public Data Network (PDN) connectivity. 78 o cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed": This cause code is used by 79 the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv6 is allowed for the 80 requested PDN connectivity. 82 o cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed": This cause code 83 is used by the network to indicate that the requested PDN 84 connectivity is accepted with the restriction that only single IP 85 version bearers are allowed. 87 If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network 88 but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will 89 be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. 90 It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address 91 family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access 92 Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is 93 to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts. 95 According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the 96 network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], 97 there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User 98 Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether 99 that UE should retry with another address family. 101 This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification 102 codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. 104 These notification codes are not specific to 3GPP architectures, but 105 can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are 106 provided as an illustration example. 108 2. Terminology 110 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 111 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 112 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 113 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 114 capitals, as shown here. 116 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In 117 particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and 118 "responder" terms used in that document. 120 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? 122 Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that 123 is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That 124 code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given 125 address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using 126 another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code 127 when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder. 129 INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the 130 IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. 132 4. An Update to RFC7296 134 The following notification codes are defined: 136 o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address 137 family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with 138 the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address 139 family. 141 o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is 142 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 143 include any IPv4-related object. 145 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 146 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 147 address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification 148 code. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but gets 149 the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the 150 IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in 151 subsequent requests. 153 o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is 154 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 155 include any IPv6-related object. 157 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 158 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) 159 and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator 160 requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED 161 notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator 162 should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests. 164 o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only a single 165 address family can be assigned per request, not both. This code 166 is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 167 addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address 168 family can be assigned per request by the responder. 170 The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local 171 to the responder. 173 If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address 174 families, it replies with the preferred address family and 175 includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification code. Upon receipt of 176 this code, the initiator MAY re-issue another configuration 177 request to ask for an additional address family. 179 For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by 180 the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/initiator MUST 181 follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. 183 5. Security Considerations 185 This document adheres to the security considerations defined in 186 [RFC7849] and [RFC7296]. 188 6. IANA Considerations 190 This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types 191 - Error Types" registry available at: 193 https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ 194 ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes: 196 Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference 197 TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] 198 TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 199 TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 200 TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 202 7. Acknowledgements 204 Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. 206 Thanks to Paul Wouters and Yaov Nir for the comments. 208 8. References 210 8.1. Normative References 212 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 213 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 214 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 215 . 217 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 218 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 219 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 220 2014, . 222 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 223 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 224 May 2017, . 226 8.2. Informative References 228 [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, 229 N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, 230 "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, 231 DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, 232 . 234 Author's Address 235 Mohamed Boucadair 236 Orange 237 Rennes 35000 238 France 240 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com