Wireless Networks

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 1443–1459 | Cite as

Secure and efficient binding updates in host-based distributed mobility management

  • Seyeong Lee
  • Hyoung-Kee ChoiEmail author
  • Ejin Kim
  • Jong-Hyouk Lee


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.


Distributed 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).


  1. 1.
    Simsek, M., et al. (2016). 5G-enabled Tactile Internet. IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications, 34(3), 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maier, M., et al. (2016). The Tactile Internet: vision, recent progress, and open challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(5), 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perkins, C., Johnson, D., & Arkko, J. (2011). Mobility support in IPv6. IETF RFC 6275.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gundavelli, S., et al. (2008). Proxy mobile IPv6. IETF RFC 5213.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soliman, H. (2009). Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack hosts and routers. IETF RFC 5555.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, J., et al. (2014). Mobile data offloading: A host-based distributed mobility management approach. IEEE Internet Computing, 18(01), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, D., et al. (2015). Distributed mobility management: Current practices and gap analysis. IETF RFC 7429.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, J., et al. (2013). Distributed IP mobility management from the perspective of the IETF: Motivations, requirements, approaches, comparison, and challenges. IEEE Wireless Communications, 20(5), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dummit, D., Dummit, E., & Kisilevsky, H. (2016). Characterizations of quadratic, cubic, and quartic residue matrices. Journal of Number Theory, 168, 167–179.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elia, M., Piva, M., & Schipani, D. (2015). The Rabin cryptosystem revisited. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing, 26(3), 251–275.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crypto ++ Libtsty 5.6.3.
  12. 12.
    Chuang, M., Lee, J., & Chen, M. (2013). SPAM: A secure password authentication mechanism for seamless handover in proxy mobile IPv6 networks. IEEE Systems Journal, 7(1), 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, J. (2016). Secure authentication with dynamic tunneling in distributed IP mobility management. IEEE Wireless Communications, 23(5), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rossi, A., Pierre, S., & Krishnan, S. (2013). Secure route optimization for MIPv6 using enhanced CGA and DNSSEC. IEEE Systems Journal, 7(3), 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 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. 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. 18.
    Moskowitz, R., et al. (2008). Host identity protocol. IETF RFC 5201.Google Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Cui, Y., et al. (2017). Innovating transport with QUIC: Design approaches and research challenges. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(2), 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eronen, P., et al. (2006). IKEv2 mobility and multihoming (MOBIKE) protocol. IETF RFC 4621.Google Scholar
  23. 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. 24.
    Forsberg, D., et al. (2008). Protocol for carrying authentication for network access (PANA). IETF RFC 5191.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zorn, G., et al. (2012). Handover Keying (HOKEY) architecture design. IETF RFC 6697.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science an EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of SoftwareSangmyung UniversityCheonanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations