Advertisement

Security Overheads for Signaling in Beyond-3G Networks

  • Dario S. Tonesi
  • Alessandro Tortelli
  • Luca Salgarelli
Conference paper
Part of the Signals and Communication Technology book series (SCT)

The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 6 is an important step towards all-IP, next generation mobile networks. Compared to previous 3GPP networks, Release 6 defines the IP Multimedia Subsystem, a core network architecture completely based on IETF protocols. Among these protocols, the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) is used for initiating, managing and terminating media sessions. Even though simple and flexible, SIP has not been defined with security in mind. Therefore, 3GPP technical specifications require SIP signaling to be protected by means of IPSec security associations. The use of SIP together with IPSec can result in a significant increase of both the amount of traffic exchanged and the computational load due to signaling inside the core network. This paper analyzes the computational overheads due to security for signaling in 3GPP Release 6 core networks.

Keywords

Session Initiation Protocol Core Network Advance Encryption Standard User Agent Universal Mobile Telecommunication System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    “Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems (UMTS); IP Multimedia Sub- system (IMS); Stage 2,” TS 123.228 Version 6.12.0 (2005-12), ETSI, December 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, “SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC 3261, IETF, June 2002Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Calhoun, J. Loughney, E. Guttman, G. Zorn, and J. Arkko, “Diameter Base Protocol,” RFC 3588, IETF, September 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “3G Security, Network Domain Security (NDS), IP Network Layer Security,” TS 133.210, ETSI, 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Xenakis, N. Laoutaris, L. Merakos, and I. Stavrakakis, “A generic char- acterization of the overheads imposed by IPSec and associated cryptographic algorithms,” Computer Networks, vol. 50, pp. 3225-3241, December 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Kent,“IP Encapsulating Security Payload(ESP),” RFC 4303, IETF, December 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    .“Data Encryption Standard (DES),” FIPS PUB 46-3, U.S. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, 1999Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES),” FIPS PUB 197, U.S. Federal Infor-mation Processing Standards Publication, 2001Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography. CRC Press, October 1996. ISBN 0-8493-8523-7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    “Secure Hash Standard,” FIPS PUB 180-1, U.S. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, April 1995Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare, and R. Canetti, “HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication,” RFC 2104, IETF, February 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Rivest, “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm,” RFC 1992, IETF, April 1992Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    “ITU-T Standard; Network Grade of Service Parameters and Target Values for Circuit-Switched Services in the Evolving ISDN,” ITU-T Recommendation E.721, ITU, May 1999Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dario S. Tonesi
    • 1
  • Alessandro Tortelli
    • 1
  • Luca Salgarelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di BresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations