An Experimental Evaluation of a HIP Based Network Mobility Scheme

  • Jukka Ylitalo
  • Jan Melén
  • Patrik Salmela
  • Henrik Petander
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5031)


In this paper, the authors present and evaluate a network mobility scheme based on Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The cryptographic host identifiers are combined with an authorization mechanism and used for delegating the mobility management signalling rights between nodes in the architecture. While the delegation of the signalling rights scheme itself is a known concept, the trust model presented in this paper differs from the MIPv6 NEMO solution. In the presented approach, the mobile routers are authorized to send location updates directly to peer hosts on behalf of the mobile hosts without opening the solution for re-direction attacks. This is the first time the characteristics of the new scheme is measured in the HIP moving network context using a real implementation. The trust model makes it possible to support route optimization and minimize over-the-air signalling and renumbering events in the moving network. The measurements also reveal new kinds of anomalies in the protocol implementation and design when data integrity and confidentiality protection are integrated into signalling aggregation. The authors propose solutions for these anomalies.


Mobile Node Network Mobility Mobile Host Home Agent Signalling Proxy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aura, T., Roe, M., Arkko, J.: Security of Internet Location Management. In: Proc. of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Las Vegas, USA (December 2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., Thubert, P.: RFC 3963: Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol (January 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, B., Ylonen, T.: RFC 2693: SPKI Certificate Theory (September 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeong, J.P., Lee, K., Park, J., Kim, H.: ND-Proxy based Route and DNS Optimizations for Mobile Nodes in Mobile Network (February 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kang, H., Kim, K., Han, S., Lee, K.-J., Park, J.-S.: Route Optimization for Mobile Network by Using Bi-directional Between Home Agent and Top Level Mobile Router. In: Internet-Draft, work in progress (June 2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melén, J., Ylitalo, J., Salmela, P.: Host Identity Protocol based Mobile Router (HIPMR). Internet-Draft, work in progress (March 2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng, C., Zhao, F., Watari, M., Thubert, P.: Network Mobility Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis. RFC 4889 (July 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nikander, P., Arkko, J.: Delegation of Signalling Rights. In: Proc. of the 10th International Workshop on Security Protocols, Cambridge, UK, April 2002, pp. 203–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nikander, P., Ylitalo, J., Wall, J.: Integrating Security, Mobility, and Multi-homing in a HIP Way. In: Proc. of the NDSS 2003, San Diego, CA, USA (February 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nováczki, S., Bokor, L., Jeney, G., Imre, S.: Design and Evaluation of a Novel HIP-Based Network Mobility Protocol. JOURNAL OF NETWORKS 3(1) (January 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohnishi, H., Sakitani, K., Takagi, Y.: HMIP based Route optimization method in a mobile network. Internet-Draft, work in progress (October 2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    HIP Service Discovery. Internet-Draft, work in progress (June 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paakkonen, P., Salmela, P., Aguero, R., Choque, J.: Performance Analysis of HIP-based Mobility and Triggering. In: Proc. of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WOWMOM 2008), Newport Beach, CA, USA (June 2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petander, H., Perera, E., Lan, K., Seneviratne, A.: Measuring and Improving Performance of Network Mobility Management in IPv6 Networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communications, Special Issue on Mobile Routers and Network Mobility (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thubert, P., Molteni, M.: IPv6 Reverse Routing Header and its application to Mobile Networks. Internet-Draft, work in progress (February 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wakikawa, R., Koshiba, S., Uehara, K., Murai, J.: ORC: Optimized Route Cache Management Protocol for Network Mobility. In: Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT 2003), French Polynesia, February 2003, pp. 1194–1200 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walfish, M., Stribling, J., Krohn, M., Balakrishnan, H., Morris, R., Shenker, S.: Middleboxes no longer considered harmful. In: Proc. of the USENIX OSDI, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 2004,Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ylitalo, J.: Re-thinking Security in Network Mobility. In: Proc. of the NDSS Wireless and Security Workshop, San Diego, CA, USA (February 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ylitalo, J., Melén, J., Nikander, P., Torvinen, V.: Re-thinking Security in IP based Micro-Mobility. In: Proc. of the 7th Information Security Conference (ICS 2004), Palo Alto, CA, USA, September 2004, pp. 318–329 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ylitalo, J., Salmela, P., Tschofenig, H.: SPINAT: Integrating IPsec into Overlay Routing. In: Proc. of SecureComm 2005, Athens, Greece (September 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jukka Ylitalo
    • 1
  • Jan Melén
    • 1
  • Patrik Salmela
    • 1
  • Henrik Petander
    • 2
  1. 1.Ericsson Research NomadicLabJorvasFinland
  2. 2.NICTA 

Personalised recommendations