One document matched: draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC2119 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4861 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4861.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4862 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4862.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3775 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3775.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3776 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3776.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4285 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4285.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4877 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4877.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.laganier-mext-cga PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.laganier-mext-cga.xml'>
]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc tocappendix="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std"
docName="draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-02"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="Security protocol negotiation">Negotiation of
security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation
</title>
<author role ="editor" fullname="Bruno Faria" initials="B" surname="Faria">
<organization>Nokia Institute of Technology</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Av. Torquato Tapajos, 7200 - Km. 12 - Col Terra Nova</street>
<city>Manaus</city>
<region>AM</region>
<code>69048-660</code>
<country>BRAZIL</country>
</postal>
<email>bruno.faria@indt.org.br</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Basavaraj Patil" initials="B" surname="Patil">
<organization>Nokia</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>6021 Connection drive</street>
<city>Irving</city>
<region>TX</region>
<code>75039</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>basavaraj.patil@nokia.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="G" surname="Bajko" fullname="Gabor Bajko">
<organization>Nokia</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>323 Fairchild drive 6</street>
<city>Mountain view</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94043</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>gabor.bajko@nokia.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2011" />
<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>Individual Submission</workgroup>
<keyword>Mobility</keyword>
<keyword>Mobile IPv6</keyword>
<keyword>Security</keyword>
<keyword>IKEv2</keyword>
<keyword>Home Agent</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
Mobile IPv6 has relied on IPsec and IKE/v2 for securing the
signaling and user traffic. A single security mechanism for
Mobile IPv6 does not adequately address various deployment
scenarios. The one-size-fits-all security approach is ill
suited for Mobile IPv6. Multiple alternatives to securing
signaling and user traffic have been proposed and are being
considered for standardization. When multiple security
protocols coexist for providing security for mobile IPv6 nodes,
there is a need to negotiate the choice of protocol between a
mobile node and home agent apriori. This document proposes a
method for negotiation the security protocol to be used between
mobile IPv6 nodes.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>
Mobile IPv6 has relied on IPsec and IKE/v2 for securing the
signaling and user traffic. A single security mechanism for
Mobile IPv6 does not adequately address various deployment
scenarios. The one-size-fits-all security approach is ill
suited for Mobile IPv6. Multiple alternatives to securing
signaling and user traffic have been proposed and are being
considered for standardization. When multiple security
protocols coexist for providing security for mobile IPv6 nodes,
there is a need to negotiate the choice of protocol between a
mobile node and home agent apriori. This document proposes a
method for negotiation the security protocol to be used betewen
mobile IPv6 nodes.
</t>
<t>
Mobile IPv6 <xref target="RFC3775" /> security using IPsec and
IKE is specified in <xref target="RFC3776" /> and
<xref target="RFC4877"/>.
A number of alternate security protocols for use by mobile IPv6
nodes have been proposed. Authentication protocol for Mobile
IPv6 <xref target="RFC4285" /> is an example of one such. The
use of such a mechanism is however restricted to networks with
certain characterstics that are documented in the RFC.
</t>
<t>
More recently other security mechanisms for use in Mobile IPv6
deployments have been proposed. Transport Layer Security-based
Mobile IPv6 Security Framework for Mobile Node to Home Agent
Communication
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mext-mip6-tls" /> proposes a
security solution that uses TLS between the mobile node (MN)
and a home agent controller (HAC) to bootstrap the security
protocol between the MN and home agent (HA). Authorizing Mobile
IPv6 Binding Update with Cryptographically Generated Addresses
<xref target="I-D.laganier-mext-cga"/> proposes the use of CGA
for securing the signaling between an MN and HA.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Requirements Language">
<t>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
</t>
<section title="Terminology">
<t>
The terminology used in this I-D is based on the Mobile IPv6 terminology
defined in <xref target="RFC3775"/>.
</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Home Agent Controller (HAC)">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>
The home agent controller is a node responsible for bootstrapping
Mobile IPv6 security associations between a mobile node and one or
more home agents. The home agent controller also provides key
distribution to both mobile nodes and home agents. Optionally,
Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping can be done in addition to the security
association bootstrapping between the mobile node and home agent
controller.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Problem Statement">
<t>
Security for Mobile IPv6 signaling and user traffic can be
achieved via the use of different mechanisms. At the present time
the use of IPsec and IKEv2 is mandated and choice of any other
security protocol does not exist. However the use of IPsec and IKE
for providing security does not fit all deployments. Alternate
security solutions have been proposed and could be used. The use
of a security protocol by mobile IPv6 nodes should be driven by
the needs and requirements of a specific deployment. An enterprise
deployment of Mobile IPv6 will have a different set of security
requirements as compared to a cellular operator offering mobile
IPv6 service.
</t>
<t>
When Mobile IPv6 hosts have the option of choosing from multiple
security protocols, there is a need to negotiate the use of a
specific protocol between a mobile node and home agent prior to
operation. This problem is dealt with in the scope of this draft
and solutions proposed.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Using the Home agent controller">
<t>
The home agent controller (HAC) is an entity that is defined in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mext-mip6-tls"/>. The HAC provides the MN with
bootstrapping information of Mobile IPv6 such as assigned HA address, Home Network
Prefix and MN IPv6 and/or IPv4 HoA. In addition, it assigns security
parameters information to constitute the MN-HA security association.
The security association information is distributed to the HA assigned
to be used by the MN.
When negotiating the security protocol to be used by the MN,
the home agent controller plays the role of negotiating the
security protocol to be used between a mobile node and the home agent.
The HAC is aware of the capabilities and security protocols of various
home agents that it is associated with. An MN MUST contact the HAC to obtain
the home agent and home address to use. The MN can also inform the
HAC about the security protocols that it supports and can use for
securing signaling and user traffic. The HAC will then assign the
MN a valid home agent in addition to informing it of the security
protocol to be used. Optionally the HAC may provide the MN and
assigned HA the relevant security paremeters such as keys, SPI, ciphers
etc. for securing the signaling and traffic. The MN may be
configured with the address of HACs or alternatively it may
discover a HAC via DNS. This is dealt with in the
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mext-mip6-tls"/> document.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Negotiation of security protocol">
<t>
The mobile node establishes a TLS connection with the home agent
controller (HAC) and exchanges a set of messages via this secure TLS
tunnel to bootstrap mobile IPv6 as well as negotiate the choice of
security protocol. The security protocol information is exchanged using
the Request-Response messaging within the TLS secure tunnel.
The signaling flow diagram below illustrates this negotiation mechanism:
<figure title="Negotiation of security protocol for use
between MN and HA"
anchor="fig:secnegotiate">
<artwork><![CDATA[
MN HAC HA AAA
| | | |
|<===TLS connection====>|(1) | |
| | | |
|-Indicate capability-->| (2) | |
| | | |
| |<--Obtain profile, security-------->| (3)
|<--Security protocol---|(4) | |
| |--MN_ID, Sec----->|(5) |
| | | |
|<------Establish SA --------------------->|(6) |
| | | |
|<--------BU/BAck------------------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
]]></artwork></figure>
</t>
<t>
<list style="numbers">
<t>The MN establishes a TLS connection with the HAC and
authenticates itself. Authentication details are described in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mext-mip6-tls"/>. All subsequent
messaging between the MN and HAC is within the secure TLS
connection.
</t>
<t>The MN signals the security protocols that it supports
including ciphersuite and capabilities.
</t>
<t>The HAC obtains the MNs profile and allowed security methods
for the MN from the AAA server. The Home agent to be assigned to
the MN is also informed by the AAA. The HAC chooses the
security protocol to be used based on the capabilities of the MN
as well as policy information from the AAA.
</t>
<t>The HAC indicates the security protocol to be used by the
MN. It also provides the MN with the security parameters such as encryption
and integrity keys, SPI, and ciphers to be used for establishing the
SA with the allocated HA.
</t>
<t>The HAC also indicates to the assigned HA information about
the MN and selected security protocol. Additionally security
parameters required for establishing the SA are delivered to the
HA.
</t>
<t>The MN establishes the security association of the type
indicated by the HAC. This could be an IPsec SA, or it could be
the use of the SA defined in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-mext-mip6-tls"/>, the use of CGA or the use of Mobility
Security Association as defined in <xref target="RFC4285" />.
</t>
<t>The MN performs registration with the HA. The BU/BAck are
secured using the security protocol that has been chosen.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>
This document does not have any IANA requests at the present time.
</t>
</section>
85
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>
The signaling between the mobile node and home agent controller is
secured by TLS. All the messages between the MN and HAC are
tunnelled within the TLS connection and hence secured. The MN and
Home agent (HA) are either colocated or have a secure messaging
interface between them.
There exists the potential to downgrade the choice of the security
protocol between an MN and HA. However the HAC chooses the
security protocol to be used based on the capabilities of the MN
as well as policy information from an entity such as AAA. In case
the MN is incapable of more robust secure mechanisms, the HAC may
assign such a home agent with limited capabilities and
connectivity.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Summary" title="Summary and Conclusion">
<t>
The choice of security protocols to be used in mobile IPv6
deployments increases the flexibility of the protocol and makes
it viable for use in different deployment scenarios. This
however does result in the need for negotiation of a security
protocol to be used between the MN and HA. The capabilities of
the MN and home agents available for use to an MN determine the
security protocol that can be used. Use of a home agent
controller provides Mobile IPv6 with a robust mechanism for
bootstrapping as well negotiation the security protocol.
</t>
</section>
<!-- <section title="Acknowledgements"> -->
<!-- <t> -->
<!-- The authors thank X, Y, Z. -->
<!-- </t> -->
<!-- </section> -->
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
&RFC2119;
&RFC3775;
&RFC3776;
&RFC4877;
&RFC4285;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
&I-D.draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02;
&I-D.laganier-mext-cga;
</references>
</back>
</rfc>| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 07:16:00 |