- Home
- RFC 8983
RFC 8983: Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Notification Status Types for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence
- M. Boucadair
Abstract
This document specifies new Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) notification status types to better manage IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence by allowing the responder to signal to the initiator which address families are allowed.¶
This document updates RFC 7296.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
As described in [RFC7849], if the subscription data or network configuration allows only one IP address family (IPv4 or IPv6), the cellular host must not request a second PDP-Context (Section 3.2 of [RFC6459]) to the same Access Point Name (APN) for the other IP address family (AF). The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) network informs the cellular host about allowed Packet Data Protocol (PDP) types by means of Session Management (SM) cause codes. In particular, the following cause codes can be returned:¶
- cause #50 "PDP type IPv4 only allowed":
- This cause code is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv4 is allowed for the requested Public Data Network (PDN) connectivity.¶
- cause #51 "PDP type IPv6 only allowed":
- This cause code is used by the network to indicate that only PDP type IPv6 is allowed for the requested PDN connectivity.¶
- cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed":
- This cause code is used by the network to indicate that the requested PDN connectivity is accepted with the restriction that only single IP version bearers are allowed.¶
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 be configured with an IPv4 address or an IPv6 prefix by the network. It must initiate another PDP-Context activation of the other address family in addition to the one already activated for a given APN. The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is to achieve dual-stack connectivity (that is, IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity) by means of two PDP-Contexts.¶
When the User Equipment (UE) attaches to the 3GPP network using a non-3GPP access network (e.g., Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)), there are no equivalent IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296] notification codes for the 3GPP network to inform the UE why an IP address family is not assigned or whether that UE should retry with another address family.¶
This document fills that void by introducing new IKEv2 notification status types for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors (Section 4).¶
These notification status types are not specific to 3GPP architectures but can be used in other deployment contexts. Cellular networks are provided as an illustration example.¶
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In particular, readers should be familiar with "initiator" and "responder" terms used in that document.¶
3. Why Not INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE?
The following address assignment failures may be encountered when an
initiator requests assignment of IP addresses
- An initiator asks for IPvx, but IPvx address assignment is not supported by the responder.¶
- An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv4 address assignment is supported by the responder.¶
- An initiator requests both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but only IPv6 prefix assignment is supported by the responder.¶
- 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
INTERNAL_
4. IP6_ALLOWED and IP4_ALLOWED Status Types
IP6_
No data is associated with these notifications.¶
5. Update to RFC 7296
If the initiator is dual stack (i.e., supports both IPv4 and IPv6),
it MUST include configuration attributes for both address
families in its configuration request (absent explicit
policy
The responder MUST include the IP6_
| Requested AF(s) (Initiator) | Supported AF(s) (Responder) | Assigned AF(s) (Responder) | Returned Notification Status Type(s) (Responder) |
|---|---|---|---|
| IPv4 | IPv6 | None | IP6_ |
| IPv4 | IPv4 | IPv4 | IP4_ |
| IPv4 | IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv4 | IP4_ |
| IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | IP6_ |
| IPv6 | IPv4 | None | IP4_ |
| IPv6 | IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv6 | IP4_ |
| IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv4 | IP4_ |
| IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv6 | IPv6 | IP6_ |
| IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv4 and IPv6 | IP4_ |
| IPv4 and IPv6 | IPv4 or IPv6 (policy based) | IPv4 or IPv6 | IP4_ |
If the initiator only receives one single IP4_
If a dual-stack initiator requests only an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4
address) but only receives an IP4_
If a dual-stack initiator requests both an IPv6 prefix and an IPv4
address but receives an IPv6 prefix (or an IPv4 address) only with
both IP4_
For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by
the aforementioned notification status types, the responder
6. Security Considerations
Since the IPv4/IPv6 capabilities of a node are readily determined from the traffic it generates, this document does not introduce any new security considerations compared to the ones described in [RFC7296], which continue to apply.¶
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has updated the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types
- Status Types" registry (available at
<https://
| Value | NOTIFY MESSAGES - STATUS TYPES | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 16439 | IP4_ |
RFC 8983 |
| 16440 | IP6_ |
RFC 8983 |
8. References
8.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC7296]
-
Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7296 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7296 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174
8.2. Informative References
- [RFC6459]
-
Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", RFC 6459, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6459 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6459 - [RFC7849]
-
Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley, N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner, "An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7849 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7849
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.¶
Thanks to Paul Wouters, Yaov Nir, Valery Smyslov, Daniel Migault, Tero Kivinen, and Michael Richardson for the comments and review.¶
Thanks to Benjamin Kaduk for the AD review.¶
Thanks to Murray Kucherawy, Éric Vyncke, and Robert Wilton for the IESG review.¶