rfc7445
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Chen
Request for Comments: 7445 H. Deng
Category: Informational China Mobile
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Michaud
Rogers Communications
J. Korhonen
Broadcom Corporation
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
March 2015
Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming Scenarios
Abstract
This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
encountered by IPv6-enabled mobile customers in roaming scenarios.
The analysis reveals that the failure causes include improper
configurations, incomplete functionality support in equipment, and
inconsistent IPv6 deployment strategies between the home and the
visited networks.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7445.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Roaming Architecture: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Home Routed Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Local Breakout Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Typical Roaming Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Failure Case in the Network Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Failure Cases in the PDP/PDN Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Case 1: Splitting Dual-Stack Bearer . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Case 2: IPv6 PDP/PDN Unsupported . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Case 3: Inappropriate Roaming APN Set . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Case 4: Fallback Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Failure Cases in the Service Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Lack of IPv6 Support in Applications . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. 464XLAT Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. HLR/HSS User Profile Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
1. Introduction
Many mobile operators have deployed IPv6, or are about to, in their
operational networks. A customer in such a network can be provided
IPv6 connectivity if their User Equipment (UE) is IPv6 compliant.
Operators may adopt various approaches to deploy IPv6 in mobile
networks, such as the solutions described in [TR23.975]. Depending
on network conditions, either dual-stack or IPv6-only deployment
schemes can be enabled.
A detailed overview of IPv6 support in 3GPP architectures is provided
in [RFC6459].
It has been observed and reported that a mobile subscriber roaming
around a different operator's areas may experience service disruption
due to inconsistent configurations and incomplete functionality of
equipment in the network. This document focuses on these issues.
1.1. Terminology
This document makes use of these terms:
o Mobile networks refer to 3GPP mobile networks.
o Mobile UE denotes a 3GPP device that can be connected to 3GPP
mobile networks.
o The Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) is a network that is
operated by a single administrative entity. A PLMN (and therefore
also an operator) is identified by the Mobile Country Code (MCC)
and the Mobile Network Code (MNC). Each (telecommunications)
operator providing mobile services has its own PLMN [RFC6459].
o The Home Location Register (HLR) is a pre-Release 5 database (but
is also used in real deployments of Release 5 and later) that
contains subscriber data and information related to call routing.
All subscribers of an operator and the subscribers' enabled
services are provisioned in the HLR [RFC6459].
o The Home Subscriber Server (HSS) is a database for a given
subscriber and was introduced in 3GPP Release 5. It is the entity
containing the subscription-related information to support the
network entities actually handling calls/sessions [RFC6459].
o "HLR/HSS" is used collectively for the subscriber database unless
referring to the failure case related to General Packet Radio
Service (GPRS) Subscriber data from the HLR.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
An overview of key 3GPP functional elements is documented in
[RFC6459].
"Mobile device" and "mobile UE" are used interchangeably.
2. Background
2.1. Roaming Architecture: An Overview
Roaming occurs in two scenarios:
o International roaming: a mobile UE enters a visited network
operated by a different operator, where a different PLMN code is
used. The UEs could, either in an automatic mode or in a manual
mode, attach to the visited PLMN.
o Intra-PLMN mobility: an operator may have one or multiple PLMN
codes. A mobile UE could pre-configure the codes to identify the
Home PLMN (HPLMN) or Equivalent HPLMN (EHPLMN). Intra-PLMN
mobility allows the UE to move to a different area of HPLMN and
EHPLMN. When the subscriber profile is not stored in the visited
area, HLR/HSS in the Home area will transmit the profile to the
Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) / Mobility Management Entity
(MME) in the visited area so as to complete network attachment.
When a UE is turned on or is transferred via a handover to a visited
network, the mobile device will scan all radio channels and find
available PLMNs to attach to. The SGSN or the MME in the visited
networks must contact the HLR or HSS to retrieve the subscriber
profile.
Steering of roaming may also be used by the HPLMN to further restrict
which of the available networks the UE may be attached to. Once the
authentication and registration stage is completed, the Packet Data
Protocol (PDP) or Packet Data Networks (PDN) activation and traffic
flows may be operated differently according to the subscriber profile
stored in the HLR or the HSS.
The following subsections describe two roaming modes: Home-routed
traffic (Section 2.1.1) and Local breakout (Section 2.1.2).
2.1.1. Home Routed Mode
In this mode, the subscriber's UE gets IP addresses from the home
network. All traffic belonging to that UE is therefore routed to the
home network (Figure 1).
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
GPRS roaming exchange (GRX) or Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX)
networks [IR.34] are likely to be invoked as the transit network to
deliver the traffic. This is the main mode for international roaming
of Internet data services to facilitate the charging process between
the two involved operators.
+-----------------------------+ +------------------------+
|Visited Network | |Home Network |
| +----+ +----+---+ | (GRX/IPX) | +--------+ Traffic Flow
| | UE |=======>|SGSN/SGW|====================>|GGSN/PGW|============>
| +----+ +----+---+ | | +--------+ |
| |MME | | | |
| +----+ | Signaling | +--------+ |
| |-------------------------->|HLR/HSS | |
| | | +--------+ |
+-----------------------------+ +------------------------+
Figure 1: Home Routed Traffic
2.1.2. Local Breakout Mode
In the local breakout mode, IP addresses are assigned by the visited
network to a roaming mobile UE. Unlike the home routed mode, the
traffic doesn't have to traverse GRX/IPX; it is offloaded locally at
a network node close to that device's point of attachment in the
visited network. This mode ensures a more optimized forwarding path
for the delivery of packets belonging to a visiting UE (Figure 2).
+----------------------------+ +----------------+
|Visited Network | |Home Network |
| +----+ +--------+ | Signaling | +--------+ |
| | UE |=======>|SGSN/MME|------------------->|HLR/HSS | |
| +----+ +---+----+ | (GRX/IPX) | +--------+ |
| |SGW| | | |
| +---+ | | |
| || | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| |GGSN/PGW| | | |
| +--------+ | | |
| Traffic Flow || | | |
+------------------||--------+ +----------------+
\/
Figure 2: Local Breakout
The international roaming of services based on the IP Multimedia
Subsystem (IMS), e.g., Voice over LTE (VoLTE)[IR.92], is claimed to
select the local breakout mode in [IR.65]. Data service roaming
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
across different areas within an operator network might use local
breakout mode in order to get more efficient traffic forwarding and
also ease emergency services. The local breakout mode could also be
applied to an operator's alliance for international roaming of data
service.
EU Roaming Regulation III [EU-Roaming-III] involves local breakout
mode allowing European subscribers roaming in European 2G/3G networks
to have their Internet data routed directly to the Internet from
their current Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN).
Specific local breakout-related configuration considerations are
listed below:
o Operators may add the APN-OI-Replacement flag defined in 3GPP
[TS29.272] into the user's subscription data. The visited network
indicates a local domain name to replace the user requested Access
Point Name (APN). Consequently, the traffic would be steered to
the visited network. Those functions are normally deployed for
the intra-PLMN mobility cases.
o Operators may also configure the VPLMN-Dynamic-Address-Allowed
flag [TS29.272] in the user's profile to enable local breakout
mode in VPLMNs.
o 3GPP specified the Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO) function
[TS23.401] since Release 10 in order to get efficient route paths.
It enables an operator to offload a portion of the traffic at a
network node close to the UE's point of attachment to the network.
o The Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) has
defined Roaming Architecture for Voice over LTE with Local
Breakout (RAVEL) [IR.65] as the IMS international roaming
architecture. Local breakout mode has been adopted for the IMS
roaming architecture.
2.2. Typical Roaming Scenarios
Three stages occur when a subscriber roams to a visited network and
intends to invoke services:
o Network attachment: this occurs when the UE enters a visited
network. During the attachment phase, the visited network should
authenticate the subscriber and make a location update to the
HSS/HLR in the home network of the subscriber. Accordingly, the
subscriber profile is offered from the HSS/HLR. The subscriber
profile contains the allowed APNs, the allowed PDP/PDN Types, and
rules regarding the routing of data sessions (i.e., home routed or
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
local breakout mode) [TS29.272]. The SGSN/MME in the visited
network can use this information to facilitate the subsequent
PDP/PDN session creation.
o PDP/PDN context creation: this occurs after the subscriber's UE
has been successfully attached to the network. This stage is
integrated with the attachment stage in the case of 4G, but is a
separate process in 2G/3G. 3GPP specifies three types of PDP/PDN
to describe connections: PDP/PDN Type IPv4, PDP/PDN Type IPv6, and
PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6. When a subscriber creates a data session,
their device requests a particular PDP/PDN Type. The allowed
PDP/PDN Types for that subscriber are learned in the attachment
stage. Hence, the SGSN and MME via the Serving Gateway (SGW)
could initiate a PDP/PDN request to Gateway GSN (GGSN) / Packet
Data Network Gateway (PGW) modulo subscription grants.
o Service requests: when the PDP/PDN context is created
successfully, UEs may launch applications and request services
based on the allocated IP addresses. The service traffic will be
transmitted via the visited network.
Failures that occur at the attachment stage (Section 3) are
independent of home routed and the local breakout modes. Most
failure cases in the PDP/PDN context creation (Section 4) and in
service requests (Section 5) occur in the local breakout mode.
3. Failure Case in the Network Attachment
3GPP specified PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 in order to allow a UE to get both
an IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix within a single PDP/PDN bearer.
This option is stored as a part of subscription data for a subscriber
in the HLR/HSS. PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 has been introduced at the
inception of the Evolved Packet System (EPS) in 4G networks.
The nodes in 4G networks should present no issues with the handling
of this PDN Type. However, the level of support varies in 2G/3G
networks depending on the SGSN software version. In theory, S4-SGSN
(i.e., an SGSN with S4 interface) has supported the PDP/PDN Type
IPv4v6 since Release 8, and Gn-SGSN (i.e., the SGSN with Gn
interface) has supported it since Release 9. In most cases,
operators normally use Gn-SGSN to connect either GGSN in 3G or Packet
Data Network Gateway (PGW) in 4G.
The MAP (Mobile Application Part) protocol, as defined in 3GPP
[TS29.002], is used over the Gr interface between SGSN and HLR. The
MAP Information Element (IE) "ext-pdp-Type" contains the IPv4v6 PDP
Type that is conveyed to SGSN from the HLR within the Insert
Subscriber Data (ISD) MAP operation. If the SGSN does not support
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
the IPv4v6 PDP Type, it will not support the "ext-pdp-Type" IE;
consequently, it must silently discard that IE and continue
processing the rest of the ISD MAP message. An issue that has been
observed is that multiple SGSNs are unable to correctly process a
subscriber's data received in the Insert Subscriber Data Procedure
[TS23.060]. As a consequence, it will likely discard the subscriber
attach request. This is erroneous behavior due to the equipment not
being compliant with 3GPP Release 9.
In order to avoid encountering this attach problem at a visited SGSN,
both operators should make a comprehensive roaming agreement to
support IPv6 and ensure that it aligns with the GSMA documents, e.g.,
[IR.33], [IR.88], and [IR.21]. Such an agreement requires the
visited operator to get the necessary patch on all its SGSN nodes to
support the "ext-pdp-Type" MAP IE sent by the HLR. To ensure data-
session continuity in Radio Access Technology (RAT) handovers, the
PDN Type sent by the HSS to the MME should be consistent with the PDP
Type sent by the HLR to the Gn-SGSN. Where roaming agreements and
visited SGSN nodes have not been updated, the HPLMN also has to make
use of specific implementations (not standardized by 3GPP, discussed
further in Section 6) in the HLR/HSS of the home network. That is,
when the HLR/HSS receives an Update Location message from a visited
SGSN not known to support dual-stack in a single bearer, subscription
data allowing only PDP/PDN Type IPv4 or IPv6 will be sent to that
SGSN in the Insert Subscriber Data procedure. This guarantees that
the user profile is compatible with the visited SGSN/MME capability.
In addition, HSS may not have to change if the PGW is aware of the
subscriber's roaming status and only restricts the accepted PDN Type
consistent with PDP Type sent by the HLR. For example, a AAA server
may coordinate with the PGW to decide the allowed PDN Type.
Alternatively, HPLMNs without the non-standardized capability to
suppress the sending of "ext-pdp-Type" by the HLR may have to remove
this attribute from APNs with roaming service. PDN Type IPv4v6 must
also be removed from the corresponding profile for the APN in the
HSS. This will restrict their roaming UEs to only IPv4 or IPv6
PDP/PDN activation. This alternative has problems:
o The HPLMN cannot support dual-stack in a single bearer at home
where the APN profile in the HLR/HSS is also used for roaming.
o The UE may set up separate parallel bearers for IPv4 and IPv6,
where only single-stack IPv4 or IPv6 service is preferred by the
operator.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
4. Failure Cases in the PDP/PDN Creation
When a subscriber's UE succeeds in the attach stage, the IP
allocation process takes place to retrieve IP addresses. In general,
a PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 request implicitly allows the network side to
make several IP assignment options, including IPv4-only, IPv6-only,
IPv4 and IPv6 in single PDP/PDN bearer, and IPv4 and IPv6 in
separated PDP/PDN bearers.
A PDP/PDN Type IPv4 or IPv6 restricts the network side to only
allocate the requested IP address family.
This section summarizes several failures in the Home Routed (HR) and
Local Breakout (LBO) mode as shown in Table 1.
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
| Case# | UE request | PDP/PDN IP Type | Mode |
| | | permitted on GGSN/PGW | |
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
| | IPv4v6 | IPv4v6 | HR |
| #1 |-------------+------------------------+---------+
| | IPv4v6 | IPv4 or IPv6 | LBO |
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
| #2 | IPv6 | IPv6 | HR |
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
| #3 | IPv4 | IPv6 | HR |
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
| #4 | IPv6 | IPv4 | LBO |
+-------+-------------+------------------------+---------+
Table 1: Failure Cases in the PDP/PDN Creation
4.1. Case 1: Splitting Dual-Stack Bearer
Dual-stack capability is provided using separate PDP/PDN activation
in the visited network that doesn't support PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6.
That means only separate, parallel, single-stack IPv4 and IPv6
PDP/PDN connections are allowed to be initiated to separately
allocate an IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix. The SGSN does not
support the Dual Address Bearer Flag (DAF) or does not set the DAF
because the operator uses single addressing per bearer to support
interworking with nodes of earlier releases. Regardless of home
routed or local breakout mode, GGSN/PGW will change PDN/PDP Type to a
single address PDP/PDN Type and return the Session Management (SM)
Cause #52 "single address bearers only allowed" or SM Cause #28
"unknown PDP address or PDP type" as per [TS24.008] and [TS24.301] to
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
the UE. In this case, the UE may make another PDP/PDN request with a
single address PDP Type (IPv4 or IPv6) other than the one already
activated.
This approach suffers from the following drawbacks:
o The parallel PDP/PDN activation would likely double PDP/PDN bearer
resource on the network side and Radio Access Bearer (RAB)
resource on the Radio Access Network (RAN) side. It also impacts
the capacity of the GGSN/PGW, since only a certain amount of
PDP/PDN activation is allowed on those nodes.
o Some networks may allow only one PDP/PDN to be alive for each
subscriber. For example, an IPv6 PDP/PDN will be rejected if the
subscriber has an active IPv4 PDP/PDN. Therefore, the subscriber
would not be able to obtain the IPv6 connection in the visited
network. It is even worse, as they may have a risk of losing all
data connectivity if the IPv6 PDP gets rejected with a permanent
error at the APN level and not an error specific to the PDP-Type
IPv6 requested.
o Additional correlations between those two PDP/PDN contexts are
required on the charging system.
o Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) [TS29.212] / Policy and
Charging Enforcement Function (PCEF) treats the IPv4 and IPv6
sessions as independent and performs different quality-of-service
(QoS) policies. The subscriber may have an unstable experience
due to different behaviors on each IP version connection.
o Mobile devices may have a limitation on the number of allowed
simultaneous PDP/PDN contexts. Excessive PDP/PDN activations may
result in service disruption.
In order to avoid the issue, the roaming agreement in the home routed
mode should make sure the visited SGSN supports and sets the DAF.
Since the PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 is supported in the GGSN/PGW of the
home network, it's expected that the visited SGSN/MME could create a
dual-stack bearer as the UE requested.
In the local breakout mode, the visited SGSN may only allow single IP
version addressing. In this case, the DAF on the visited SGSN/MME
has to be unset. One approach is to set a dedicated APN [TS23.003]
profile to only request PDP/PDN Type IPv4 in the roaming network.
Some operators may also consider not adopting the local breakout mode
to avoid the risks.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
4.2. Case 2: IPv6 PDP/PDN Unsupported
PDP/PDN Type IPv6 has good compatibility to visited networks during
the network attachment. In order to support the IPv6-only visitors,
SGSN/MME in the visited network is required to accept IPv6-only
PDP/PDN activation requests and enable IPv6 on the user plane in the
direction of the home network.
In some cases, IPv6-only visitors may still be subject to the SGSN
capability in visited networks. This becomes especially risky if the
home operator performs roaming steering targeted to an operator that
doesn't allow IPv6. The visited SGSN may just directly reject the
PDP context activation. Therefore, it's expected that the visited
network is IPv6 roaming-friendly to enable the functions on SGSN/MME
by default. Otherwise, operators may consider steering the roaming
traffic to the IPv6-enabled visited network that has an IPv6 roaming
agreement.
4.3. Case 3: Inappropriate Roaming APN Set
If IPv6 single stack with the home routed mode is deployed, the
requested PDP/PDN Type should also be IPv6. Some implementations
that support the roaming APN profile may set IPv4 as the default
PDP/PDN Type, since the visited network is incapable of supporting
PDP/PDN Types IPv4v6 (Section 4.1) and IPv6 (Section 4.2). The
PDP/PDN request will fail because the APN in the home network only
allows IPv6. Therefore, the roaming APNs have to be compliant with
the home network configuration when home routed mode is adopted.
4.4. Case 4: Fallback Failure
In the local breakout mode, PDP/PDN Type IPv6 should have no issues
to pass through the network attachment process, since 3GPP specified
the PDP/PDN Type IPv6 as early as PDP/PDN Type IPv4. When a visitor
requests PDP/PDN Type IPv6, the network should only return the
expected IPv6 prefix. The UE may fail to get an IPv6 prefix if the
visited network only allocates an IPv4 address. In this case, the
visited network will reject the request and send the cause code to
the UE.
A proper fallback scheme for PDP/PDN Type IPv6 is desirable; however,
there is no standard way to specify this behavior. The roaming APN
profile could help to address the issue by setting the PDP/PDN Type
to IPv4. For instance, the Android system solves the issue by
configuring the roaming protocol to IPv4 for the APN. It guarantees
that UE will always initiate a PDP/PDN Type IPv4 in the roaming area.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
5. Failure Cases in the Service Requests
After the successful network attachment and IP address allocation,
applications could start to request service based on the activated
PDP/PDN context. The service request may depend on specific IP
family or network collaboration. If traffic is offloaded locally
(Section 2.1.2), the visited network may not be able to accommodate
the UE's service requests. This section describes the failures.
5.1. Lack of IPv6 Support in Applications
Operators may only allow IPv6 in the IMS APN. VoLTE [IR.92] and Rich
Communication Suite (RCS) [RCC.07] use the APN to offer voice service
for visitors. The IMS roaming in RAVEL architecture [IR.65] offloads
voice and video traffic in the visited network; therefore, a dual-
stack visitor can only be assigned with an IPv6 prefix but no IPv4
address. If the applications can't support IPv6, the service is
likely to fail.
Translation-based methods, for example, 464XLAT [RFC6877] or Bump-in-
the-Host (BIH) [RFC6535], may help to address the issue if there are
IPv6 compatibility problems. The translation function could be
enabled in an IPv6-only network and disabled in a dual-stack or IPv4
network; therefore, the IPv4 applications only get the translation in
the IPv6 network and they perform normally in an IPv4 or dual-stack
network.
5.2. 464XLAT Support
464XLAT [RFC6877] is proposed to address the IPv4 compatibility issue
in an IPv6-only connectivity environment. The customer-side
translator (CLAT) function on a mobile device is likely used in
conjunction with a PDP/PDN IPv6 Type request and cooperates with a
remote NAT64 [RFC6146] device.
464XLAT may use the mechanism defined in [RFC7050] or [RFC7225] to
detect the presence of NAT64 devices and to learn the IPv6 prefix
used for protocol translation [RFC6052].
In the local breakout approach, a UE with the 464XLAT function
roaming on an IPv6 visited network may encounter various situations.
For example, the visited network may not have deployed DNS64
[RFC6147] but only NAT64, or CLAT may not be able to discover the
provider-side translator (PLAT) translation IPv6 prefix used as a
destination of the PLAT. If the visited network doesn't have a NAT64
and DNS64 deployed, 464XLAT can't perform successfully due to the
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
lack of PLAT collaboration. Even in the case of the presence of
NAT64 and DNS64, a pre-configured PLAT IPv6 prefix in the CLAT may
cause failure because it can't match the PLAT translation.
Considering the various network configurations, operators may turn
off local breakout and use the home routed mode to perform 464XLAT.
Alternatively, UE may support the different roaming profile
configuration to adopt 464XLAT in the home network and use IPv4-only
in the visited networks.
6. HLR/HSS User Profile Setting
A proper user profile configuration would provide a deterministic
outcome to the PDP/PDN creation stage where dual-stack, IPv4-only,
and IPv6-only connectivity requests may come from devices. The
HLR/HSS may have to apply extra logic (not standardized by 3GPP) to
achieve this. It is also desirable that the network be able to set
up connectivity of any requested PDP/PDN context type.
The following are examples to illustrate the settings for the
scenarios and the decision criteria to be applied when returning user
profile information from the HLR to the visited SGSN.
user profile #1:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
ext-pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4v6
...
}
user profile #2:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv6
....
}
Scenario 1: Support of IPv6-Only, IPv4-Only, and Dual-Stack Devices
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
The full PDP-context parameters are referred to Section 17.7.1
("Mobile Service data types") of [TS29.002]. User profiles #1 and #2
share the same "ContextId". The setting of user profile #1 enables
IPv4-only and dual-stack devices to work. User profile #2 fulfills
the request if the device asks for IPv6-only PDP context.
user profile #1:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
ext-pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4v6
...
}
user profile #2:
PDP-Context ::= SEQUENCE {
pdp-ContextId ContextId,
pdp-Type PDP-Type-IPv4
....
}
Scenario 2: Support of Dual-Stack Devices with Pre-Release 9 Visited
SGSN (vSGSN) Access
User profiles #1 and #2 share the same "ContextId". If a visited
SGSN is identified as early as pre-Release 9, the HLR/HSS should only
send user profile #2 to the visited SGSN.
7. Discussion
Several failure cases have been discussed in this document. It has
been illustrated that the major problems happen at three stages: the
initial network attachment, the PDP/PDN creation, and service
requests.
In the network attachment stage, PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 is the major
concern to the visited pre-Release 9 SGSN. 3GPP didn't specify
PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6 in the earlier releases. That PDP/PDN Type is
supported in the newly built EPS network, but it isn't supported well
in the third-generation network. Visited SGSNs may discard the
subscriber's attach requests because the SGSN is unable to correctly
process PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6. Operators may have to adopt temporary
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
solutions unless all the interworking nodes (i.e., the SGSN) in the
visited network have been upgraded to support the ext-PDP-Type
feature.
In the PDP/PDN creation stage, support of PDP/PDN Types IPv4v6 and
IPv6 on the visited SGSN is the major concern. It has been observed
that single-stack IPv6 in the home routed mode is a viable approach
to deploy IPv6. It is desirable that the visited SGSN have the
ability to enable IPv6 on the user plane by default. For support of
the PDP/PDN Type IPv4v6, it is suggested to set the DAF. As a
complementary function, the implementation of a roaming APN
configuration is useful to accommodate the visited network. However,
it should consider roaming architecture and the permitted PDP/PDN
Type to properly set the UE. Roaming APN in the home routed mode is
recommended to align with home network profile setting. In the local
breakout case, PDP/PDN Type IPv4 could be selected as a safe way to
initiate PDP/PDN activation.
In the service requests stage, the failure cases mostly occur in the
local breakout case. The visited network may not be able to satisfy
the requested capability from applications or UEs. Operators may
consider using home routed mode to avoid these problems. Several
solutions, in either the network side or mobile device side, can also
help to address the issue. For example,
o 464XLAT could help IPv4 applications access IPv6 visited networks.
o Networks can deploy a AAA server to coordinate the mobile device
capability. Once the GGSN/PGW receives the session creation
request, it will initiate a request to a AAA server in the home
network via the RADIUS or Diameter protocol [TS29.061]. The
request contains subscriber and visited network information, e.g.,
PDP/PDN Type, International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI),
Software Version (SV) and visited SGSN/MME location code, etc.
The AAA server could take mobile device capability and combine it
with the visited network information to ultimately determine the
type of session to be created, i.e., IPv4, IPv6, or IPv4v6.
8. Security Considerations
Although this document defines neither a new architecture nor a new
protocol, the reader is encouraged to refer to [RFC6459] for a
generic discussion on IPv6-related security considerations.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IR.21] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "Roaming Database, Structure and Updating
Procedures", IR.21, Version 7.4, November 2013.
[IR.65] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "IMS Roaming and Interworking Guidelines", IR.65,
Version 15.0, January 2015.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
6877, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[TS23.060] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
description; Stage 2 v9.00", TS 23.060, March 2009.
[TS23.401] 3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access v9.00", TS 23.401, March 2009.
[TS29.002] 3GPP, "Mobile Application Part (MAP) specification
v9.12.0", TS 29.002, December 2009.
[TS29.272] 3GPP, "Mobility Management Entity (MME) and Serving GPRS
Support Node (SGSN) related interfaces based on Diameter protocol
v9.00", TS 29.272, September 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[EU-Roaming-III]
Amdocs Inc., "Amdocs 2014 EU Roaming Regulation III
Solution", July 2013, <http://www.amdocs.com/Products/
Revenue-Management/Documents/
amdocs-eu-roaming-regulation-III-solution.pdf>.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
[IR.33] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "GPRS Roaming Guidelines", IR.33, Version 7.0,
June 2014.
[IR.34] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "Guidelines for IPX Provider networks", IR.34
Version 11.0, January 2015.
[IR.88] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "LTE Roaming Guidelines", IR.88, Version 12.0,
January 2015.
[IR.92] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS", IR.92, Version
7.1, January 2015.
[RCC.07] Global System for Mobile Communications Association
(GSMA), "Rich Communication Suite 5.2 Advanced
Communications Services and Client Specification", RCC.07,
Version 5.0, May 2014.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[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, January 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC
7050, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[TR23.975] 3GPP, "IPv6 migration guidelines", TR 23.975, June 2011.
[TS23.003] 3GPP, "Numbering, addressing and identification v9.0.0",
TS 23.003, September 2009.
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
[TS24.008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
network protocols; Stage 3 v9.00", TS 24.008, September
2009.
[TS24.301] 3GPP, "Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for Evolved
Packet System (EPS) ; Stage 3 v9.00", TS 24.301, September
2009.
[TS29.061] 3GPP, "Interworking between the Public Land Mobile Network
(PLMN) supporting packet based services and Packet Data
Networks (PDN) v9.14.0", TS 29.061, January 2015.
[TS29.212] 3GPP, "Policy and Charging Control (PCC); Reference points
v9.0.0", TS 29.212, September 2009.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to F. Baker and J. Brzozowski for their support.
This document is the result of the IETF v6ops IPv6-Roaming design
team effort.
The authors would like to thank Mikael Abrahamsson, Victor Kuarsingh,
Nick Heatley, Alexandru Petrescu, Tore Anderson, Cameron Byrne,
Holger Metschulat, and Geir Egeland for their helpful discussions and
comments.
The authors especially thank Fred Baker and Ross Chandler for their
efforts and contributions that substantially improved the readability
of the document.
Contributors
The following individual contributed to this document.
Vizdal Ales
Deutsche Telekom AG
Tomickova 2144/1
Prague 4, 149 00
Czech Republic
EMail: ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 7445 IPv6 Roaming Analysis March 2015
Authors' Addresses
Gang Chen
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xicheng District,
Beijing 100053
China
EMail: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com
Hui Deng
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
EMail: denghui@chinamobile.com
Dave Michaud
Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Rd.
Brampton, ON L6T 0C1
Canada
EMail: dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom Corporation
3151 Zanker Rd.
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
EMail: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes,
35000
France
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Chen, et al. Informational [Page 19]
ERRATA
