Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Updates: 7296 (if approved) October 21, 2018
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 24, 2019

IKEv2 Notification Codes for IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence


This document specifies new IKEv2 notification codes to better manage IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence.

This document updates RFC7296.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2018 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 ( 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

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 to the same APN for the other IP address family. 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:

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 Access Point Name (APN). The purpose of initiating a second PDP-Context is to achieve dual-stack connectivity by means of two PDP-Contexts.

According to 3GPP specifications (TS.24302), when the UE attaches the network using a WLAN access by means of IKEv2 capabilities [RFC7296], there are no equivalent notification codes to inform the User Equipment (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 codes for the sake of deterministic UE behaviors.

These notification codes 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.


Section 3.15.4 of defines a generic notification code that is related to a failure to handle an internal address failure. That code does not explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given address family is not assigned, nor whether it should try using another address family. INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE is a catch-all code when an address-related issue is encountered by an IKEv2 responder.

INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE does not provide sufficient hints to the IKEv2 initiator to adjust its behavior.

4. An Update to RFC7296

The following notification codes are defined:

Section 3.15.4 of.

For other address-related error cases that have not been covered by the aforementioned notification codes, the repsonder/initiator MUST follow the procedure defined in

5. Security Considerations

This document adheres to the security considerations defined in [RFC7849] and [RFC7296].

6. IANA Considerations

This document requests IANA to update the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Error Types" registry available at: with the following codes:

Value           NOTIFY MESSAGES - ERROR TYPES        Reference
 TBD                     UNSUPPORTED_AF           [This-Document]
 TBD                   IP6_ONLY_SUPPORTED         [This-Document]
 TBD                   IP4_ONLY_SUPPORTED         [This-Document]
 TBD                  SINGLE_AF_SUPPORTED         [This-Document]

7. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.

Thanks to Paul Wouters and Yaov Nir for the comments.

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/RFC2119, March 1997.
[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/RFC7296, October 2014.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.

8.2. Informative References

[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/RFC7849, May 2016.

Author's Address

Mohamed Boucadair Orange Rennes, 35000 France EMail: