Abstract
The IPv6 standard documentation of IETF is recommending to execute Binding Update (BU) using Return Routability (RR) protocol. But, it doesn’t support entirely the security requirement of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) networks. To solve this problem, the IETF also counsels carrying out the BU using IPSec into RR protocol. But, that it uses in inefficient shot-term connection and mobile device of low-power is inefficient. We propose the efficient and secure Ticket based Binding Update (TBU) protocol for MIPv6 networks. In our TBU protocol, when Mobile Node (MN) first executes the BU, its Correspondent Node issues a ticket to MN. This ticket assist that it is able to do efficiently the BU whenever MN requires the BU for the future. The proposed TBU protocol need not be repeated equal BU course whenever the MN moves to foreign link or network, and is able to be executed in environment of not operating the Home Agent, and also easies scalability. We describe security analysis through attack scenarios and efficiency by comparing previous protocol schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Johnshon, D., Perkins, C., & Arkko, J. (2004). Mobility support in IPv6. In IETF RFC 3775.
Droms, R. (1997). Dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP). In IETF RFC 2131, March 1997.
Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Aura, T., Montenegro, G., & Nordmark, E. (2005). Mobile IP version 6 route optimization security design background. In IETF RFC 4225, December 2005.
Kent, S., & Atkinson, R. (1998). IP authentication header. In IETF RFC 2402, November 1998.
Kent, S., & Atkinson, R. (1998). IP encapsulating security payload (ESP). In IETF RFC 2406, November 1998.
Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., & Dupont, F. (2004). Using IPsec to protect mobile IPv6 signaling between mobile nodes and home agents. In IETF RFC 3776, June 2004.
Harkins, D., & Carrel, D. (1998). The internet key exchange (IKE). In IETF RFC 2409.
O’Shea, G., & Roe, M. (2001). Child-proof authentication for MIPv6 (CAM). ACM Computer Communications Review, 31, 4–8.
Montenegro, G., & Castelluccia, C. (2002). Statistically unique and cryptographically verifiable (SUCV) identifiers and address. In ISOC symposium on network and distributed system security ( NDSS 2002), February 2002.
Montenegro, G., & Castelluccia, C. (2004). Crypto-based identifiers (CBID): Concepts and application. ACM Transaction on Information and System Security, 7, 97–127.
Qiu, Y., Zhou, J., & Bao, F. (2004). Protecting all traffic channels in mobile IPv6 networks. In Proceeding of WCNC‘04 , March 2004 (Vol. 1, pp. 160–165).
Deng, R., Zhou, J., & Bao, F. (2002). Defending against redirect attack in mobile IP. In Proceedings o f the 9th ACM conference on computer and communications security, Washington, DC, November 2002.
Preneel, B., et al. Performance of optimized implementations of the NESSIE primitives, NES/DOC/TEC/WP6/D21/2, www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/nessie/deliverables/D21-2.pdf.
Goo, J. D., & Lee, D. C. (2008). A new authentication scheme of binding update protocol on handover in mobile IPv6 networks. In EUC Workshops 2008, Aug ust 2008.
Thomson, S., & Narten, T. (1998). IPv6 stateless address auto-configuration. In IETF RFC 2462, December 1998.
Aura, T. (2005). Cryptographically generated addresses (CGAs). In IETF RFC 3972.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, D.C., Kim, K.J. Improved Authentication of Binding Update Protocol in Mobile IPv6 Networks. Wireless Pers Commun 94, 351–367 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-3020-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-3020-z