Feature: Add IPv6 support

[adjivas]

Hello,

This PR adds the RegisterIP/BindingIP fields, we can set them with IPv4 or IPv6 values
For not introduce any breaking changes, the RegisterIPv4/BindingIPv4 are the fall back of the RegisterIP/BindingIP fields.

A lookup resolution is added to both RegisterIP/BindingIP

Additionally, I tested this PR with AUSF/UDM IPv6 (See free5gc/ausf#34 and free5gc/udm#48)
I checked it with my adaptation of the free5gc's tests: adjivas/free5gc#4

[linouxis9]

Thanks a ton :-) I've added a small comment!

[Alonza0314]

@adjivas Hi, it seems like the commit message check got failed. Can you help to solve this error?

[adjivas]

@Alonza0314 Hello, sure it's did! I renamed fix into fixe, so now it's will pass

[Alonza0314]

@Alonza0314 Hello, sure it's did! I renamed fix into fixe, so now it's will pass

I think it should be "fix" instead of "fixe".😆

[adjivas]

I simply squash this commits into one :)

[Alonza0314]

Thanks, it looks great now.
May I know why the upgrades are specifically for AMF, AUSF, and UDM? Is there a particular reason for focusing on these three components?

[linouxis9]

Hi @Alonza0314,

Initial focus was on AMF as its the entrypoint of the 5GC, and it made sense to begin with it. AUSF/UDM followed as they are ones of the first NFs the AMF interacts with in the Registration call flow.

Thanks and cheers,
Valentin

[adjivas]

Hello @Alonza0314, everything is fine with this PRs (AMF, AUSF, UDM) ?
To work on IPv6 support of the next Free5gc components, I need to know if this PR/model is ok for you

Best see,
adjivas

[Alonza0314]

@adjivas

Sorry for the late reply.

These three PRs look good to me. After discussing with the team, we have decided to merge them once all NFs support IPv6 and pass the full tests.

Really appreciate you proposing this feature—it’s a great step forward!

Thanks again,
Alonza

[ianchen0119]

Hi @adjivas

I noticed that the PR has been closed for no reason.
Do you want to merge this PR into our mainline?

Thank you!

[adjivas]

Hello @ianchen0119 , yes, that was a mistake. I closed because it was superseded by PR#9.
This PR was based on the main branch of my fork. That was a problem for me because I hadn’t only worked on IPv6 support.
I planned to open it again from the ipv6 branch of my fork.

Today I haven't the lead on this task.

But, here is all my IPv6 branches:

• amf/ipv6-support
• smf/ipv6-support
• udr/ipv6-support
• pcf/ipv6-support
• nrf/ipv6-support
• ausf/ipv6-support
• udm/ipv6-support

I tested it with an custom PacketRusher, I locally adapted it with a naive IPv6 support

[ianchen0119]

@adjivas
I got it.
Thanks for your reply.
We want to merge all of related PR in this release period if it's possible🙏

[adjivas]

Hi, thank you for pinging, I started this PR while I was working for a company and now that I left it, I am interested in seeing it through but only if the task is not up for grabs. Also, I don't have much time to dedicate to it so I will try my best to open all this PR soon as possible.
That sounds good for you @linouxis9 ?

[ianchen0119]

@adjivas

Thanks for your reply.
We could help reopen all of the PRs if you don't have enough time.

@linouxis9
Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks!

[linouxis9]

Hi,

@adjivas It's open-source, you are of course free to continue working on these PRs!
If you don't want/can't do it, we'll gladly take care of it however!

Thanks!
Valentin