draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01.txt   draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-02.txt 
Network Working Group M. Boucadair Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange Internet-Draft Orange
Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 05, 2018 Updates: 7296 (if approved) November 08, 2018
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 9, 2019 Expires: May 12, 2019
IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence IKEv2 Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-01 draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better This document specifies new IKEv2 notification status types to better
manage 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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 May 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 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 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED Status Types . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. An Update to RFC7296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 50 skipping to change at page 2, line 51
version bearers are allowed. version bearers are allowed.
If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network If the requested IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported by the network
but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will but IPv4 and IPv6 PDP types are allowed, then the cellular host will
be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network.
It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address
family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access family in addition to the one already activated for a given Access
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 When the UE attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of
network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], there are no equivalent notification
there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User codes to inform the User Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is
Equipment (UE) why an IP address family is not assigned or whether not assigned or whether that UE should retry with another address
that UE should retry with another address family. family.
This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification
status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors. status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors (Section 4).
These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP
architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts. architectures, but can be used in other deployment contexts.
Cellular networks are 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?
The following address assignment failures may be encountered when an
initiator requests assignment of IP addresses/prefixes:
o An initiator asks for IPvx, but IPvx address assignment is not
supported by the responder.
o An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv4
address assignment is supported by the responder.
o An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv6
prefix assignment is supported by the responder.
o An initiator asks for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only one
address family can be assigned by the responder for policy
reasons.
Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type Section 3.15.4 of [RFC7296] defines a generic notification error type
that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure.
That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine That error type does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine
why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try
using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch- using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-
all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an all error type when an address-related issue is encountered by an
IKEv2 responder. 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. IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED Status Types
The following notification status types are defined: IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED and IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED status types (see Section 7)
are defined to inform the initiator about the responser's address
family assignment support capabilities, and to report to the
initiator the reason why an address assignment failed. These
notifications are used by the initiator to adjust its behavior
accordingly (Section 5).
o UNSUPPORTED_AF: This status type indicates that the requested No data is associated with these notifications.
address family (IPv4 or IPv6) is not supported. Subsequent
exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT include any object of that
address family.
o IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv6 is 5. An Update to RFC7296
supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT
include any IPv4-related object.
Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 If the initiator is dual-stack, it MUST include both address families
addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv6 in its request (absent explicit policy/configuration otherwise).
address(es)/prefix(es) and the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification
status type. If the initiator requests only IPv4 address(es) but
gets the IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the
responder, the IPv6-capable initiator should request IPv6
address(es) only in subsequent requests.
o IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only IPv4 is The responder MUST include IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED (or IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED)
supported. Subsequent exchanges with the remote peer MUST NOT status type in a response to an address assignment request in the
include any IPv6-related object. following cases:
Concretely, if the initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 1. The responder only supports IPv6 (or IPv4) address assignment, or
addresses/prefixes, the responder replies with IPv4 address(es)
and the IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type. If the
initiator requests only IPv6 address(es) and gets the
IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED notification status type from the responder,
the IPv4-capable initiator should request IPv4 address(es) only in
subsequent requests.
o SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED: This status type indicates that only a single 2. The responder supports both IPv4 and IPv6 address assignments,
address family can be assigned per request, not both. This status but it is configured to reply to requests asking for both address
type is returned when an initiator requested both IPv4 and IPv6 families with only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4 address).
addresses/prefixes in the same request, but only a single address
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
to the responder. local to the responder.
If a responder receives a request for both IPv4 and IPv6 address If the initiator receives IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED or IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED
families, it replies with the preferred address family and notification from the responder, the initiator MUST NOT send a
includes SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED notification status type. Upon request for an alternate address family not supported by the
receipt of this status type, the initiator MAY re-issue another responder.
configuration request to ask for an additional address family.
If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4
address) but receives IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED (or IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED)
notification from the responder, the initiator MUST send a request
for IPv4 address(es) (or IPv6 prefix(es)).
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 status types, the repsonder/initiator the aforementioned notification status types, the repsonder/initiator
MUST 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 6. Security Considerations
This document adheres to the security considerations defined in This document adheres to the security considerations defined in
[RFC7296]. [RFC7296].
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types
- Status 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 status types: ikev2-parameters.xhtml with the following status types:
Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference Value NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES Reference
TBD UNSUPPORTED_AF [This-Document] TBD IP6_ONLY_ALLOWED [This-Document]
TBD IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document] TBD IP4_ONLY_ALLOWED [This-Document]
TBD IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
TBD SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED [This-Document]
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review. Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.
Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, and Daniel Migault Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, Daniel Migault, and
for the comments. Tero Kivinen for the comments.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. 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>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, [RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley,
N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner,
"An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 73 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/