idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits51395/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01.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 (November 05, 2018) is 1293 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 201, 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) November 05, 2018 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 9, 2019 8 IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence 9 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01 11 Abstract 13 This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better 14 manage 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 May 9, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. 104 These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP 105 architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts. 106 Cellular networks are 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 error type 123 that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. 124 That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine 125 why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try 126 using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch- 127 all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an 128 IKEv2 responder. 130 INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the 131 IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. 133 4. An Update to RFC7296 135 The following notification status types are defined: 137 o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This status type indicates that the requested 138 address family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent 139 exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that 140 address family. 142 o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv6 is 143 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 144 include any IPv4-related object. 146 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 147 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 148 address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification 149 status type. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but 150 gets the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the 151 responder, the IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 152 address(es) only in subsequent requests. 154 o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv4 is 155 supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT 156 include any IPv6-related object. 158 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 159 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) 160 and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type. If the 161 initiator requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the 162 IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the responder, 163 the IPv4-capable initiator should request IPv4 address(es) only in 164 subsequent requests. 166 o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only a single 167 address family can be assigned per request, not both. This status 168 type is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 169 addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address 170 family can be assigned per request by the responder. 172 The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local 173 to the responder. 175 If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address 176 families, it replies with the preferred address family and 177 includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification status type. Upon 178 receipt of this status type, the initiator MAY re-issue another 179 configuration request to ask for an additional address family. 181 For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by 182 the aforementioned notification status types, the repsonder/initiator 183 MUST follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. 185 5. Security Considerations 187 This document adheres to the security considerations defined in 188 [RFC7296]. 190 6. IANA Considerations 192 This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types 193 - Status Types" registry available at: 194 https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ 195 ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following status types: 197 Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference 198 TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] 199 TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 200 TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 201 TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] 203 7. Acknowledgements 205 Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. 207 Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, and Daniel Migault 208 for the comments. 210 8. References 212 8.1. Normative References 214 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 215 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 217 . 219 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 220 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 221 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 222 2014, . 224 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 225 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 226 May 2017, . 228 8.2. Informative References 230 [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, 231 N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, 232 "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, 233 DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, 234 . 236 Author's Address 238 Mohamed Boucadair 239 Orange 240 Rennes 35000 241 France 243 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com