3GPP TS 24008 PDF

3GPP TS V () Technical Specification 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Net. C_REC#3: The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in [TS] [TS] [TS] for requesting a PDP- Context type. File Name: pycrate_mobile/ # * Created: 3GPP TS Mobile radio interface layer 3 specification. # release 13 (d90).

Author: Zolomi Gardak
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 18 July 2018
Pages: 58
PDF File Size: 20.5 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.71 Mb
ISBN: 152-6-23074-903-7
Downloads: 63914
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zurr

heise Netze – IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)

st Haeffner 3gp; May Format: Binet Request for Comments: Chen China Mobile N. Chandler eircom meteor D. Michaud Rogers Communications D. Both mobile hosts and mobile devices with the capability to 3gp; their 3GPP mobile connectivity are in scope. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be tts at http: Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction IPv6 deployment in 3GPP mobile networks is the only viable solution to the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses in those networks. One of the major hurdles as perceived by some mobile operators is the lack of availability of working IPv6 implementation in mobile devices e. In the light of recent IPv6 production deployments, additional features to facilitate IPv6-only deployments while accessing IPv4-only services should be considered.

This document fills this void. Concretely, this document lists means to ensure IPv4 service over an IPv6-only connectivity given the adoption rate of this model by mobile operators. Those operators require that no service degradation is experienced by customers serviced with an IPv6-only model compared to the level of service of 3fpp with legacy IPv4-only devices.

The objectives of this effort are as follows: List in 3pgp single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack mobile deployment contexts. Help operators with the detailed device requirement list preparation to be exchanged with device suppliers. This is also a contribution to harmonize operators’ requirements towards device vendors.

Inform vendors of a set of features to allow for IPv6 connectivity and IPv4 service continuity over an IPv6-only transport. The recommendations do not include 3GPP release details. For more information on the 3GPP release details, the reader may refer to Section 6. More details can be found at. RFC IPv6 Profile for Cellular Devices May Some of the features listed in this profile 3bpp could require that dedicated functions be activated at the network side.

It is out of scope of this document to list these network-side functions. IPv6-only considerations in mobile networks are further discussed in [RFC]. This document is organized as follows: Terminology This document makes use of the 24080 defined in [RFC]. In addition, the following terms are used: Because of this diversity of terminals, 3pp is necessary to define a set of IPv6 functionalities valid for any node directly tss to a 3GPP mobile network.

This document describes these functionalities. The machine-to-machine M2M devices profile is out of scope. This document is structured to provide the generic IPv6 recommendations that are valid for all nodes, whatever their function e. The document also contains sections covering specific functionalities for devices providing some LAN functions e.

Moreover, this profile also covers 3gop CE routers that are used in various mobile broadband deployments. Recommendations inspired from real deployment experiences e.


Also, this profile sketches recommendations for the sake of deterministic behaviors of cellular 2400 when the same configuration information is received over several channels. The main motivation is that cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to fixed networks for home IP-based services delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones and 3GPP data dongles.

There is a need for Binet, et al. The support of this functionality in both cellular and fixed networks is key for fixed-mobile convergence. As such, means to minimize broken applications when the cellular host is attached to an IPv6-only network should 3ypp encouraged. Particularly, 1 name resolution libraries e.

IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)

Note, some IETF specifications e. The recommendations included in each section are listed in a priority order. This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. Compliance with this profile does not require the support of all enclosed items. Obviously, the support of the ys set of features may not be required in some deployment contexts.

However, the authors believe that not supporting relevant features included in this profile e. Connectivity Recommendations This section identifies the main connectivity recommendations to be followed by a cellular host to attach to a network using IPv6 244008 addition to what is defined in [RFC] and [RFC].

Both dual- stack and IPv6-only deployment models are considered. IPv4 service continuity features are listed in this section because these are critical for operators with an IPv6-only deployment model. These recommendations apply also for cellular devices see Section 3. The cellular host must comply with the behavior defined in [TS. In particular, the cellular host must request by default an IPv6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is IPv6-only and request an IPv4v6 PDP-Context if the cellular host is dual- stack or when the cellular host is not aware of connectivity types requested by devices connected to it e.

In particular, the following cause codes can be returned: The 3GPP network communicates parameters by means of the protocol configuration options information tz when activating, modifying, or deactivating a PDP-Context.

PCO is a convenient method to inform the cellular host about various services, including DNS server information. It does not require additional protocol to be supported by the cellular host and it is already deployed in IPv4 cellular networks to convey such DNS information.

If the cellular host receives the DNS information in several channels for the same interface, the following preference order must be followed: DHCPv6 The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee for a deterministic behavior to be followed by all cellular 3gppp when the DNS information is received in various channels.

Because of potential operational deficiencies to be experienced in some roaming situations, the 3gppp host must be able to be configured with a home PDP-Context type s and a roaming PDP-Context type s.

The purpose of the roaming profile is to limit the PDP type s requested by the cellular host when out of the home network. The configuration can be either local to the device or be managed dynamically using, for example, Open Mobile Alliance OMA management. The support of dynamic means is encouraged. In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications relying on address referrals will fail because an IPv6-only client will not be able to make use of an IPv4 address received in a referral.

The more applications are address family independent, the less the CLAT function is solicited. CLAT may not be required in some contexts, e. IPv6-only connectivity on the cellular device does not allow IPv4-only sessions to be established for hosts connected on the LAN segment of the cellular device.


IPv4 session establishment initiated from hosts located on the LAN segment side and destined for IPv4 nodes must be maintained. The default mode is to allow all supported PDP types. This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE to be aligned with 1 service-specific constraints such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE, 2 network conditions with regard to the support of specific PDP types e. This may be considered as a brokenness situation by some applications.

The configuration can be either local to the device or be managed dynamically using, for example, OMA management. In addition to the generic recommendations listed in Section 2, these cellular devices have to meet the recommendations listed below.

Particularly, it must behave as a Requesting Router. Cellular networks are more and more perceived as an alternative to fixed broadband networks for home IP- based services delivery; especially with the advent of smartphones 3gpo 3GPP data st.

In case a prefix is delegated to a cellular host using DHCPv6, the cellular device will be configured with two prefixes: Note that the 3GPP network architecture requires both the WAN and the delegated prefix to be aggregatable so 3gpo subscriber can be identified using a single prefix. There are several deployments, particularly in emerging countries, that rely on mobile networks to provide broadband services e.

Note, this profile does not require IPv4 hs continuity techniques listed in Section 4. IPv4 service continuity techniques specific to the mobile networks are included in this 240088. This recommendation does not apply to handsets with tethering capabilities; it is specific to cellular CE routers in order to ensure the same IPv6 functional parity for both fixed and cellular CE routers.

Note, modern CE routers are designed with advanced functions such as link aggregation that consists in optimizing the network usage by aggregating the connectivity 3gpo offered via various interfaces e.

Ensuring IPv6 feature parity among these interface types is important for the sake of specification efficiency, service design simplification, and validation effort optimization. Advanced Recommendations This section identifies a set of advanced recommendations to fulfill requirements of critical services such as VoLTE.

These recommendations apply for mobile hosts, including mobile devices. Other ROHC profiles may be supported. Bandwidth in cellular networks must be optimized as much as possible. ROHC provides a solution to reduce bandwidth consumption and to reduce the impact of having bigger packet headers in IPv6 compared to IPv4. The support of PCP is seen as a driver to save battery consumption exacerbated by keep-alive messages.

PCP also gives the possibility of enabling incoming connections to the cellular device. Indeed, because Binet, et al.

When no keep-alive is issued, the consumption would be 5. The impact of keepalive messages would be more severe if multiple applications are issuing those messages e. Avoiding soliciting ALGs makes it easier to develop a service without any adherence with the underlying transport network. As discussed in Section 5. When the cellular host is dual-stack connected i. Cellular hosts should follow the procedure specified in [RFC] for source address selection.