IPv6 deployment

scenarios in mobile networks

Jouni Korhonen
Netnod Spring Meeting
9-11 March, 2011
Stockholm, Sweden

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

1 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Foreword

•  This presentation concentrates in most parts to 3GPP packet core;

both GPRS (2G/+3G radio) & Evolved Packet System (LTE radio).

•  3GPP system architecture release numbers are explicitly stated

when different releases make difference.

•  3GPP architecture has supported IPv6 since Rel-99.. and the

fundamental peculiarities & flaws originate from that time(*).

•  This presentation takes a peek into some current IPv6 deployments

plans and trends I have faced when discussing with operators.

•  The emphasis is on getting IPv6 to the end user – not whole

operator transmission/core/interconnection/roaming migration.
3GPP “IPv6 migration guideline” is in 3GPP TR29.975.

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

2 © Nokia Siemens Networks
(*) see draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps for a lot of details
In the year 2005 this was proposed for the system
architecture evolution...

Internet
Subscription
AAA Registers
Serving
Node - C

BS Service
All IP Serving Inter-connection Gateway Operator
Node - U
Access Network HA
service
network
BS

•  Had no concept of PDP Context.. Bearerless radio concept..

•  Had no mandatory IP Mobility as part of the architecture..
•  Had no mandatory tunneling..
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
3 © Nokia Siemens Networks
In the year 2011 this is what we got for the system
architecture evolution...
RAN Packet Core &
BSC
2G LTE
Gb Combi GGSN
SGSN
RNC
3G Gn Gi
Iu

(Gn)
NodeB
MME
LTE S1-MME
S1-U S11 Gateway
SGW PGW
eNodeB S10
S5
SGi

Gx
PCRF

•  Although not visible here, there are multiple IP Mobility & tunneling
protocols: GTPv[12], MIPv4, DSMIPv6, PMIPv6, IPsec/MOBIKE, GRE..
•  APNs, default and dedicated bearers, Policy Control, PDN Connections, ..
•  And a lot of options.. also in case of IPv6!
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
4 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Some jargon and fundamentals

•  Access Point Name (APN) is a fully qualified domain name and resolves to a specific gateway in an
operator network. APN identifies the network to connect via the selected gateway.

•  PDN (Connection) Types: IPv4, IPv6 and IPv4v6 (dual-stack). A device may have multiple PDN
Connections of the same or different types open in parallel.

•  Subscription profiles understand: IPv4, IPv6, IPv4v6 and IPv4_or_IPv6.

•  Each IP[v4]v6 PDN Connection has exactly one unique /64.

•  SLAAC is the only supported IPv6 configuration method for the mobile device.

•  3GPP separates User Plane (UP) & Control Plane (CP).

•  Extensive tunneling for User Plane: transmission and payload IP versioning are independent of
each other. GTP (UDP encapsulation) is the dominant tunneling protocol.

•  The first real User Plane “IP aware” node is PGW/GGSN (hmm.. PMIPv6 is an exception).

•  IPv6 migration solutions involving mobile host terminated tunneling strictly ruled out in 3GPP.. in
standards space.. reality might prove different, though.

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

5 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Mobile operators’ positions towards IPv6

•  jDriver: IPv4 address shortage Driver: market demand

• Always on apps, M2M, LTE-
devices, .. need a lot of addresses
• Growth of mobile broadband
discourages NAT44 deployments
• Simply.. out of addresses any
day soon
IPv6
deployment
Mode: aggressive.. or panic
and migration Mode: it happens eventually
• Addresses out and NATs are
melting
• Deploy now even if the world
around you is not up to speed
• IPv6-only is ok, NAT64 is ok.
• Do not bother waiting for dual-
stack capable handsets and core
• Address shortage not an issue in
the foreseen future or NATing ok
• React when lack of IPv6 start
causing loss of subscribers
• May offer something to selected
•  groups (even using tunneling)
• ...Wait until Dual-Stack capability
becomes available/justified
• Accept NATing IPv4 ‘forever’
• Deploy selectively (i.e. end users
don’t really care about IP version)

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

6 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Introducing IPv6 in phases

•  IPv6 rollout can be and is recommended to be phased:

•  1st IPv6 at the application and end-user layer:

•  End-user visible User Plane has technically been “switch on” for some time.
•  Operators have done quite a bit of testing behind the curtains. However,
•  Commercial offering usually involves a lot more: security(!), subscriber management/
processes, customer support, roaming, DPI, provisioning, billing, DNS, AAA, address
planning, ..., and a whole lot more in-house systems & databases.

•  2nd IPv6 at the transport layer:

•  Since User Plane is always tunneled there seems be no hurry to upgrade transmission to
IPv6.. and sometimes transmission is owned/operator by some one else who’s IPv6
rollout schedule is different.
•  Upgrading RAN and transmission to IPv6 typically not business critical.
•  Typically IPv6 is not the driver to touch existing IPv4 MPLS core & aggregation network.
•  Roaming and interconnection not even defined for IPv6 yet.. it tends to work though.

•  3rd IPv6 at all other interfaces:

•  3GPP signaling protocol information elements are IPv6 aware, even when run over IPv4.
•  Core nodes run just fine in all IPv4 environment..
Netnod•  Management
Spring Meeting, 2011 systems running in IPv6 typically not business critical.
7 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Typical IPv6 network introduction plan Subsystem
IP Multimedia
Mobile Broadband Access as #2
• Packet Core IPv4 • Can be IPv6 only
• User IPv6, (S)Gi Dual-Stack • Backend interfaces can be IPV4
• IPv6 either native or tunneled to Internet
• Current /64Broadband
Mobile link model makes prefix delegation for
home gateways problematic (prior Rel-10)
Core Network Dual-StackIMS Site
Fixed Broadband as #1 (if available)
• IPv6 provided to end-user
• Native, or
Network Services obviously..
• Either native or tunneled • MPLS - 6PE/6VPE
• DNS has to be upgraded to
• 6rd (getting popular..), etc.
support IPv6 access
• After transition to IPv6 IPv4 can be
provided with DS-Lite, some A+P • Reverse DNSInternet
has to connectivity
be set up
• Dual-Stack
Internet
• Either native or tunneled
Fixed Broadband
Core

Network Management as last

• No need to upgrade at this point
*if* it understands IPv6
information elements..
Management
Network
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
8 © Nokia Siemens Networks

Primary colours: Supporting colours:

Operators and IPv6 migration; common
approaches for the mobile side of operator
•  Native Dual-Stack everywhere (3G/EPS) + NAT44:
•  Slow paced introduction to network. Start with easy to control devices –
like USB dongles (and having a laptop does help migration.. dialers).
•  Some in a mode of waiting till LTE.. but this attitude is changing.
•  No desire to introduce NAT64 (no improvement over NAT44).
•  No desire to introduce parallel IPv4 and IPv6 bearers.. doubles ‘costs’.

•  Handovers between 3G and LTE are important. If pre-Rel-8

SGSNs are still in use, it means IPv4 or IPv6 only bearers.

•  IP[v4]v6 for specific use/service.. easily doable e.g. a using

dedicated “IPv6 APN” subscription bundled with a subsidized
IPv6 capable handset/dongle.
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
9 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Operators and IPv6 migration; common
approaches for the mobile side of operator
•  IPv6 only + NAT64:
•  Not overly popular but still to be reckoned with.
•  Good for always on (LTE) handsets that are unlikely be used for active
internet usage and produce huge traffic volumes..
•  No desire to introduce parallel IPv4 and IPv6 bearers.. doubles ‘costs’.

•  Active push to get important applications to IPv6 native.

•  Handovers between 3G and LTE are important. If pre-Rel-8 SGSNs

are used, it means IPv4 or IPv6 only bearers. Not issue with IPv6-
only+NAT64 approach.

•  IP[v4]v6 for specific use/service.. easily doable e.g. a using

dedicated “IPv6 APN” subscription bundled with a subsidized IPv6
capable handset/dongle.
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
10 © Nokia Siemens Networks
NAT44 and NAT64 considerations..

•  NAT44 has become an important topic; something needed now and

most likely forever after dual-stack deployment. Operators have
accepted this..

•  Common to bypass NATs/FWs for heavy users and smart phones.

•  NAT64 seen as bad as NAT44 but not equally important.

•  16million RFC1918 address limit has caused headache:

•  Huge APNs where e.g. subscriber identification based on source IP
address (usually some “Gi box” or content platform issue).
•  Network segmentation/overlapping private networks would help but...

•  Authorities require tracking of users behind a NAT -> real time

tracing and NAT logging is becoming a real issue.
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
11 © Nokia Siemens Networks
NAT[46]4 deployments.. may all exist in one
network and differentiated by subscriptions
IPv6-only for e.g. M2M and “simple” handset

UE PGW/NAT64
PGW
IPv6-only IPv6
NAT64 IPv4 Internet

(S)Gi Domain
Dual-stack.. “normal” users

UE PGW/NAT44
PGW
dual-stack IPv6
IPv6
NAT44 IPv4 Internet

(S)Gi Domain

•  The decision of NAT placement depends on e.g.

•  Gateway capacity, overlapping addressing needs,
•  Need of “Gi boxes”, PCC integration, ..
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
12 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Dual-stack deployments.. may co-exists with NAT
[46]4 and differentiated by subscriptions
Dual-stack.. “power” users and always on smart phones

UE PGW
dual-stack IPv6
Internet
IPv4

(S)Gi Domain

•  The “UE” can also be a CPE with a cellular uplink

•  Rel-10 introduces DHCPv6-PD.. or did someone say NAT66 or ND-
Proxy? ;)
•  CPE can do NAT44 for its internal network (remember, one IPv4
address per PDN Connection).
•  Small business or widespot area internet solution.

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

13 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Fallback scenarios and roaming cause confusion

•  If inter-RAT handovers are desired (e.g. 3G-LTE) then network

migration has to be planned and subscriptions provisioned based
on the lowest common nominator:
•  Example: 3G has IPv4 only, then LTE can only support IPv4.
•  A reason for many to wait until 3G (Rel-9 feature) and EPS (Rel-8 feature)
both are IPv4v6 capable..

•  A dual-stack capable handset (since Rel-8) is always supposed to

first try establishing IPv4v6 connection, then fall back to something
different based on 1) subscription and 2) MME/PGW/GGSN
configuration:
•  See draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps Section 8.7 for a full list of choices.

•  There is no roaming defined yet for IP[v4]v6:

•  GSMA has recently started working on IPv6 roaming but in general
operators have not invested that much effort on it yet.
•  It just happens to work ~75% of cases for IPv6.
•  Real issues with inter-operator billing, thus IPv6 roaming barring is in radar.
Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011
14 © Nokia Siemens Networks
 Thank you!

Questions?

Netnod Spring Meeting, 2011

15 © Nokia Siemens Networks