draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00.txt   draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01.txt 
Network Working Group M. Boucadair Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange Internet-Draft Orange
Updates: 7296 (if approved) October 21, 2018 Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 05, 2018
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 24, 2019 Expires: May 9, 2019
IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-00 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better
IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence. manage IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence.
This document updates RFC7296. This document updates RFC7296.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network
configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the
cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context to the same APN
for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership for the other IP address family. The Third Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet
Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause
codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned: codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned:
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is
to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts. to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.
According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the
network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296],
there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User
Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether
that UE should retry with another address family. that UE should retry with another address family.
This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification
codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors.
These notification codes are not specific to 3GPP architectures, but These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP
can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts.
provided as an illustration example. Cellular networks are provided as an illustration example.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In
particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and
"responder" terms used in that document. "responder" terms used in that document.
3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE? 3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE?
Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification code that Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type
is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure.
code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine
address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try
another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-
when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder. all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an
IKEv2 responder.
INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the
IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior. IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior.
4. An Update to RFC7296 4. An Update to RFC7296
The following notification codes are defined: The following notification status types are defined:
o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This code indicates that the requested address o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This status type indicates that the requested
family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent exchanges with address family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent
the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that address exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that
family. address family.
o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv6 is o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv6 is
supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
include any IPv4-related object. include any IPv4-related object.
Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6
address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification
code. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but gets status type. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but
the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code from the responder, the gets the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the
IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6 address(es) only in responder, the IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6
subsequent requests. address(es) only in subsequent requests.
o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only IPv4 is o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv4 is
supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
include any IPv6-related object. include any IPv6-related object.
Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es) addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es)
and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification code. If the initiator and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type. If the
requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED initiator requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the
notification code from the responder, the IPv4-capable initiator IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the responder,
should request IPv4 address(es) only in subsequent requests. the IPv4-capable initiator should request IPv4 address(es) only in
subsequent requests.
o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This code indicates that only a single o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only a single
address family can be assigned per request, not both. This code address family can be assigned per request, not both. This status
is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 type is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address
family can be assigned per request by the responder. family can be assigned per request by the responder.
The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local The address family preference is defined by a policy that is local
to the responder. to the responder.
If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address
families, it replies with the preferred address family and families, it replies with the preferred address family and
includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification code. Upon receipt of includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification status type. Upon
this code, the initiator MAY re-issue another configuration receipt of this status type, the initiator MAY re-issue another
request to ask for an additional address family. configuration request to ask for an additional address family.
For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by
the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/initiator MUST the aforementioned notification status types, the repsonder/initiator
follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849]. MUST follow the procedure defined in Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7849].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document adheres to the security considerations defined in This document adheres to the security considerations defined in
[RFC7849] and [RFC7296]. [RFC7296].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types
- Error Types" registry available at: - Status Types" registry available at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ https://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/
ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following codes: ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following status types:
Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES Reference Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference
TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document]
TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document] TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.
Thanks to Paul Wouters and Yaov Nir for the comments. Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, and Daniel Migault
for the comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 50 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/