Secure and efficient binding updates in host-based distributed mobility management
- 171 Downloads
Rapid evolution in mobile communication is geared toward reliable and responsive network connectivity, thereby necessitating a network protocol operated in a distributed fashion. Distributed mobility management (DMM) achieves low latency and high reliability by shifting the main signaling functions from the core center to the edge of the network. However, there is still room for improvement, especially in the delay response of security operations. This paper proposes the design of an efficient security protocol for binding updates in a DMM environment. The proposed security protocol is designed especially for host-based DMM in which a mobile node plays an active role in mobility and authentication signaling instead of delegating it to the network. The security and performance of the new design are evaluated via theoretical analysis and empirical evaluation in both a laboratory and a live network setting. Based on these evaluations, we contend that in terms of security and performance the proposed security protocol is practical for host-based DMM.
KeywordsDistributed mobility management (DMM) Centralized mobility management (CMM) Binding update (BU) Quadratic residue (QR)
This work was supported by Institute for Information and communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2017-0-01861, Research on the security of operating system).
- 3.Perkins, C., Johnson, D., & Arkko, J. (2011). Mobility support in IPv6. IETF RFC 6275.Google Scholar
- 4.Gundavelli, S., et al. (2008). Proxy mobile IPv6. IETF RFC 5213.Google Scholar
- 5.Soliman, H. (2009). Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack hosts and routers. IETF RFC 5555.Google Scholar
- 7.Liu, D., et al. (2015). Distributed mobility management: Current practices and gap analysis. IETF RFC 7429.Google Scholar
- 11.Crypto ++ Libtsty 5.6.3. http://www.cryptopp.com/.
- 15.Snoeren, A., & Balakrishnan, H. (2000). An end-to-end approach to host mobility. In Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on mobile computing and networking (MobiCom).Google Scholar
- 16.Aura, T., et al. (2004). Effects of mobility and multihoming on transport-protocol security. In Proceedings of IEEE symposium security and privacy.Google Scholar
- 17.Seggelmann, R., et al. (2012). DTLS mobility. In Proceedings of international conference of distributed computing and networking (ICDCN), pp. 443–457, Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
- 18.Moskowitz, R., et al. (2008). Host identity protocol. IETF RFC 5201.Google Scholar
- 19.Raiciu, C., et al. (2011). Opportunistic mobility with multipath TCP. In Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on MobiArch, pp. 7–12, Bethesda, USA.Google Scholar
- 20.Jadin, M., et al. (2017). Securing multipath TCP: Design and implementation. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on computer communications (INFOCOM), Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
- 22.Eronen, P., et al. (2006). IKEv2 mobility and multihoming (MOBIKE) protocol. IETF RFC 4621.Google Scholar
- 23.Korhonen, J., et al. (2012). Mobile IPv6 security framework using transport layer security for communication between the mobile node and home agent. IETF RFC 6618.Google Scholar
- 24.Forsberg, D., et al. (2008). Protocol for carrying authentication for network access (PANA). IETF RFC 5191.Google Scholar
- 25.Zorn, G., et al. (2012). Handover Keying (HOKEY) architecture design. IETF RFC 6697.Google Scholar