Skip to main content

End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5206.
Authors Pekka Nikander , Christian Vogt , Jari Arkko , Tom Henderson
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2007-03-05)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Experimental
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 5206 (Experimental)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Mark Townsley
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                              T. Henderson (editor)
Internet-Draft                                        The Boeing Company
Expires: September 3, 2007                                 March 2, 2007

   End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007


   This document defines mobility and multihoming extensions to the Host
   Identity Protocol (HIP).  Specifically, this document defines a
   general "LOCATOR" parameter for HIP messages that allows for a HIP
   host to notify peers about alternate addresses at which it may be
   reached.  This document also defines elements of procedure for
   mobility of a HIP host-- the process by which a host dynamically
   changes the primary locator that it uses to receive packets.  While
   the same LOCATOR parameter can also be used to support end-host
   multihoming, detailed procedures are left for further study.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology and Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Protocol Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Operating Environment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.1.  Locator  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.1.2.  Mobility overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.1.3.  Multihoming overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.1.  Mobility with single SA pair (no rekeying) . . . . . . 11
       3.2.2.  Mobility with single SA pair (mobile-initiated
               rekey) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.3.  Host multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.4.  Site multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.2.5.  Dual host multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       3.2.6.  Combined mobility and multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.2.7.  Using LOCATORs across addressing realms  . . . . . . . 16
       3.2.8.  Network renumbering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.2.9.  Initiating the protocol in R1 or I2  . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.3.  Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.3.1.  Address Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.3.2.  Credit-Based Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.3.3.  Preferred locator  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       3.3.4.  Interaction with Security Associations . . . . . . . . 20
   4.  LOCATOR parameter format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     4.1.  Traffic Type and Preferred locator . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     4.2.  Locator Type and Locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     4.3.  UPDATE packet with included LOCATOR  . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   5.  Processing rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.1.  Locator data structure and status  . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     5.2.  Sending LOCATORs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     5.3.  Handling received LOCATORs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     5.4.  Verifying address reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.5.  Changing the Preferred locator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

     5.6.  Credit-Based Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.6.1.  Handling Payload Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.6.2.  Credit Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     6.1.  Impersonation attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     6.2.  Denial of Service attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       6.2.1.  Flooding Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       6.2.2.  Memory/Computational exhaustion DoS attacks  . . . . . 39
     6.3.  Mixed deployment environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   8.  Authors and Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     9.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     9.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   Appendix A.  Changes from previous versions  . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     A.1.  From nikander-hip-mm-00 to nikander-hip-mm-01  . . . . . . 44
     A.2.  From nikander-hip-mm-01 to nikander-hip-mm-02  . . . . . . 44
     A.3.  From -02 to draft-ietf-hip-mm-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     A.4.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     A.5.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     A.6.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     A.7.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     A.8.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 48

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

1.  Introduction and Scope

   The Host Identity Protocol [1] (HIP) supports an architecture that
   decouples the transport layer (TCP, UDP, etc.) from the
   internetworking layer (IPv4 and IPv6) by using public/private key
   pairs, instead of IP addresses, as host identities.  When a host uses
   HIP, the overlying protocol sublayers (e.g., transport layer sockets
   and ESP Security Associations) are instead bound to representations
   of these host identities, and the IP addresses are only used for
   packet forwarding.  However, each host must also know at least one IP
   address at which its peers are reachable.  Initially, these IP
   addresses are the ones used during the HIP base exchange [2].

   One consequence of such a decoupling is that new solutions to
   network-layer mobility and host multihoming are possible.  There are
   potentially many variations of mobility and multihoming possible.
   The scope of this document encompasses messaging and elements of
   procedure for basic network-level mobility and simple multihoming,
   leaving more complicated scenarios and other variations for further
   study.  Specifically,

      This document defines a generalized LOCATOR parameter for use in
      HIP messages.  The LOCATOR parameter allows a HIP host to notify a
      peer about alternate addresses at which it is reachable.  The
      LOCATORs may be merely IP addresses, or they may have additional
      multiplexing and demultiplexing context to aid the packet handling
      in the lower layers.  For instance, an IP address may need to be
      paired with an ESP SPI so that packets are sent on the correct SA
      for a given address.

      This document also specifies the messaging and elements of
      procedure for end-host mobility of a HIP host-- the sequential
      change in preferred IP address used to reach a host.  In
      particular, message flows to enable successful host mobility,
      including address verification methods, are defined herein.

      However, while the same LOCATOR parameter is intended to support
      host multihoming (parallel support of a number of addresses), and
      experimentation is encouraged, detailed elements of procedure for
      host multihoming are left for further study.

   While HIP can potentially be used with transports other than the ESP
   transport format [6], this document largely assumes the use of ESP
   and leaves other transport for further study.

   There are a number of situations where the simple end-to-end
   readdressing functionality is not sufficient.  These include the
   initial reachability of a mobile host, location privacy, simultaneous

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   mobility of both hosts, and some modes of NAT traversal.  In these
   situations there is a need for some helper functionality in the
   network, such as a HIP Rendezvous server [3].  Such functionality is
   out of scope of this document.  We also do not consider localized
   mobility management extensions (i.e., mobility management techniques
   that do not involve directly signaling the correspondent node); this
   document is concerned with end-to-end mobility.  Finally, making
   underlying IP mobility transparent to the transport layer has
   implications on the proper response of transport congestion control,
   path MTU selection, and QoS.  Transport-layer mobility triggers, and
   the proper transport response to a HIP mobility or multihoming
   address change, are outside the scope of this document.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

2.  Terminology and Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [7].

   LOCATOR.  The name of a HIP parameter containing zero or more Locator
      fields.  This parameter's name is distinguished from the Locator
      fields embedded within it by the use of all capital letters.

   Locator.  A name that controls how the packet is routed through the
      network and demultiplexed by the end host.  It may include a
      concatenation of traditional network addresses such as an IPv6
      address and end-to-end identifiers such as an ESP SPI.  It may
      also include transport port numbers or IPv6 Flow Labels as
      demultiplexing context, or it may simply be a network address.

   Address.  A name that denotes a point-of-attachment to the network.
      The two most common examples are an IPv4 address and an IPv6
      address.  The set of possible addresses is a subset of the set of
      possible locators.

   Preferred locator.  A locator on which a host prefers to receive
      data.  With respect to a given peer, a host always has one active
      Preferred locator, unless there are no active locators.  By
      default, the locators used in the HIP base exchange are the
      Preferred locators.

   Credit Based Authorization.  A host must verify a mobile or multi-
      homed peer's reachability at a new locator.  Credit-Based
      Authorization authorizes the peer to receive a certain amount of
      data at the new locator before the result of such verification is

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

3.  Protocol Model

   This section is an overview; more detailed specification follows this

3.1.  Operating Environment

   The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [2] is a key establishment and
   parameter negotiation protocol.  Its primary applications are for
   authenticating host messages based on host identities, and
   establishing security associations (SAs) for ESP transport format [6]
   and possibly other protocols in the future.

    +--------------------+                       +--------------------+
    |                    |                       |                    |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |   |    Key     |   |         HIP           |   |    Key     |   |
    |   | Management | <-+-----------------------+-> | Management |   |
    |   |  Process   |   |                       |   |  Process   |   |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |         ^          |                       |         ^          |
    |         |          |                       |         |          |
    |         v          |                       |         v          |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |   |   IPsec    |   |        ESP            |   |   IPsec    |   |
    |   |   Stack    | <-+-----------------------+-> |   Stack    |   |
    |   |            |   |                       |   |            |   |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |                    |                       |                    |
    |                    |                       |                    |
    |     Initiator      |                       |     Responder      |
    +--------------------+                       +--------------------+

                      Figure 1: HIP deployment model

   The general deployment model for HIP is shown above, assuming
   operation in an end-to-end fashion.  This document specifies
   extensions to the HIP protocol to enable end-host mobility and basic
   multihoming.  In summary, these extensions to the HIP base protocol
   enable the signaling of new addressing information to the peer in HIP
   messages.  The messages are authenticated via a signature or keyed
   hash message authentication code (HMAC) based on its host identity.
   This document specifies the format of this new addressing (LOCATOR)
   parameter, the procedures for sending and processing this parameter
   to enable basic host mobility, and procedures for a concurrent
   address verification mechanism.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

            | TCP   |  (sockets bound to HITs)
      ----> | ESP   |  {HIT_s, HIT_d} <-> SPI
      |     ---------
      |         |
    ----    ---------
   | MH |-> | HIP   |  {HIT_s, HIT_d, SPI} <-> {IP_s, IP_d, SPI}
    ----    ---------
            |  IP   |

       Figure 2: Architecture for  HIP mobility and multihoming (MH)

   Figure 2 depicts a layered architectural view of a HIP-enabled stack
   using ESP transport format.  In HIP, upper-layer protocols (including
   TCP and ESP in this figure) are bound to HITs and not IP addresses.
   The HIP sublayer is responsible for maintaining the binding between
   HITs and IP addresses.  The SPI is used to associate an incoming
   packet with the right HITs.  The block labeled "MH" is introduced

   Consider first the case in which there is no mobility or multihoming,
   as specified in the base protocol specification [2].  The HIP base
   exchange establishes the HITs in use between the hosts, the SPIs to
   use for ESP, and the IP addresses (used in both the HIP signaling
   packets and ESP data packets).  Note that there can only be one such
   set of bindings in the outbound direction for any given packet, and
   the only fields used for the binding at the HIP layer are the fields
   exposed by ESP (the SPI and HITs).  For the inbound direction, the
   SPI is all that is required to find the right host context.  ESP
   rekeying events change the mapping between the HIT pair and SPI, but
   do not change the IP addresses.

   Consider next a mobility event, in which a host is still single-homed
   but moves to another IP address.  Two things must occur in this case.
   First, the peer must be notified of the address change using a HIP
   UPDATE message.  Second, each host must change its local bindings at
   the HIP sublayer (new IP addresses).  It may be that both the SPIs
   and IP addresses are changed simultaneously in a single UPDATE; the
   protocol described herein supports this.  However, simultaneous
   movement of both hosts, notification of transport layer protocols of
   the path change, and procedures for possibly traversing middleboxes
   are not covered by this document.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   Finally, consider the case when a host is multihomed (has more than
   one globally routable address) and has multiple addresses available
   at the HIP layer as alternative locators, for fault tolerance.
   Examples include the use of (possibly multiple) IPv4 and IPv6
   addresses on the same interface, or the use of multiple interfaces
   attached to different service providers.  Such host multihoming
   generally necessitates that a separate ESP SA is maintained for each
   interface in order to prevent packets that arrive over different
   paths from falling outside of the ESP anti-replay window [4].
   Multihoming thus makes possible that the bindings shown on the right
   side of Figure 2 are one to many (in the outbound direction, one HIT
   pair to multiple SPIs, and possibly then to multiple IP addresses).
   However, only one SPI and address pair can be used for any given
   packet, so the job of the "MH" block depicted above is to dynamically
   manipulate these bindings.  Beyond locally managing such multiple
   bindings, the peer-to-peer HIP signaling protocol needs to be
   flexible enough to define the desired mappings between HITs, SPIs,
   and addresses, and needs to ensure that UPDATE messages are sent
   along the right network paths so that any HIP-aware middleboxes can
   observe the SPIs.  This document does not specify the "MH" block, nor
   does it specify detailed elements of procedure for how to handle
   various multihoming (perhaps combined with mobility) scenarios.  The
   "MH" block may apply to more general problems outside of HIP.
   However, this document does describe a basic multihoming case (one
   host adds one address to its initial address and notifies the peer)
   and leave more complicated scenarios for experimentation and future

3.1.1.  Locator

   This document defines a generalization of an address called a
   "locator".  A locator specifies a point-of-attachment to the network
   but may also include additional end-to-end tunneling or per-host
   demultiplexing context that affects how packets are handled below the
   logical HIP sublayer of the stack.  This generalization is useful
   because IP addresses alone may not be sufficient to describe how
   packets should be handled below HIP.  For example, in a host
   multihoming context, certain IP addresses may need to be associated
   with certain ESP SPIs, to avoid violation ESP anti-replay window.
   Addresses may also be affiliated with transport ports in certain
   tunneling scenarios.  Locators may simply be traditional network
   addresses.  The format of the locators is defined in Section 4.

3.1.2.  Mobility overview

   When a host moves to another address, it notifies its peer of the new
   address by sending a HIP UPDATE packet containing a LOCATOR
   parameter.  This UPDATE packet is acknowledged by the peer.  For

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   reliability in the presence of packet loss, the UPDATE packet is
   retransmitted as defined in the HIP protocol specification [2].  The
   peer can authenticate the contents of the UPDATE packet based on the
   signature and keyed hash of the packet.

   When using ESP Transport Format [6], the host may at the same time
   decide to rekey its security association and possibly generate a new
   Diffie-Hellman key; all of these actions are triggered by including
   additional parameters in the UPDATE packet, as defined in the base
   protocol specification [2] and ESP extension [6].

   When using ESP (and possibly other transport modes in the future),
   the host is able to receive packets that are protected using a HIP
   created ESP SA from any address.  Thus, a host can change its IP
   address and continue to send packets to its peers without necessarily
   rekeying.  However, the peers are not able to send packets to these
   new addresses before they can reliably and securely update the set of
   addresses that they associate with the sending host.  Furthermore,
   mobility may change the path characteristics in such a manner that
   reordering occurs and packets fall outside the ESP anti-replay window
   for the SA, thereby requiring rekeying.

3.1.3.  Multihoming overview

   A related operational configuration is host multihoming, in which a
   host has multiple locators simultaneously rather than sequentially as
   in the case of mobility.  By using the LOCATOR parameter defined
   herein, a host can inform its peers of additional (multiple) locators
   at which it can be reached, and can declare a particular locator as a
   "preferred" locator.  Although this document defines a basic
   mechanism for multihoming, it does not define detailed policies and
   procedures such as which locators to choose when more than one pair
   is available, the operation of simultaneous mobility and multihoming,
   source address selection policies (beyond those specified in [5]),
   and the implications of multihoming on transport protocols and ESP
   anti-replay windows.  Additional definition of HIP-based multihoming
   is expected to be part of future documents.

3.2.  Protocol Overview

   In this section we briefly introduce a number of usage scenarios for
   HIP mobility and multihoming.  These scenarios assume that HIP is
   being used with the ESP transform [6], although other scenarios may
   be defined in the future.  To understand these usage scenarios, the
   reader should be at least minimally familiar with the HIP protocol
   specification [2].  However, for the (relatively) uninitiated reader
   it is most important to keep in mind that in HIP the actual payload
   traffic is protected with ESP, and that the ESP SPI acts as an index

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   to the right host-to-host context.  More specification detail on is
   later found in Section 4 and Section 5.

   The scenarios below assume that the two hosts have completed a single
   HIP base exchange with each other.  Both of the hosts therefore have
   one incoming and one outgoing SA.  Further, each SA uses the same
   pair of IP addresses; the ones used in the base exchange.

   The readdressing protocol is an asymmetric protocol where a mobile or
   multihomed host informs a peer host about changes of IP addresses on
   affected SPIs.  The readdressing exchange is designed to be
   piggybacked on existing HIP exchanges.  The majority of the packets
   on which the LOCATOR parameters are expected to be carried are UPDATE
   packets.  However, some implementations may want to experiment with
   sending LOCATOR parameters also on other packets, such as R1, I2, and

   Hosts that use link-local addresses as source addresses in their HIP
   handshakes may not be reachable by a mobile peer.  Such hosts SHOULD
   provide a globally routable address either in the initial handshake
   or via the LOCATOR parameter.

3.2.1.  Mobility with single SA pair (no rekeying)

   A mobile host must sometimes change an IP address bound to an
   interface.  The change of an IP address might be needed due to a
   change in the advertised IPv6 prefixes on the link, a reconnected PPP
   link, a new DHCP lease, or an actual movement to another subnet.  In
   order to maintain its communication context, the host must inform its
   peers about the new IP address.  This first example considers the
   case in which the mobile host has only one interface, IP address, a
   single pair of SAs (one inbound, one outbound), and no rekeying
   occurs on the SAs.  We also assume that the new IP addresses are
   within the same address family (IPv4 or IPv6) as the first address.
   This is the simplest scenario, depicted in Figure 3.

     Mobile Host                         Peer Host


       Figure 3: Readdress without rekeying, but with address check

   The steps of the packet processing are as follows:

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   1.  The mobile host is disconnected from the peer host for a brief
       period of time while it switches from one IP address to another.
       Upon obtaining a new IP address, the mobile host sends a LOCATOR
       parameter to the peer host in an UPDATE message.  The UPDATE
       message also contains an ESP_INFO parameter containing the values
       of the old and new SPIs for a security association.  In this
       case, the "Old SPI" and "New SPI" parameters both are set to the
       value of the pre-existing incoming SPI; this ESP_INFO does not
       trigger a rekeying event but is instead included for possible
       parameter-inspecting middleboxes on the path.  The LOCATOR
       parameter contains the new IP address (Locator Type of "1",
       defined below) and a locator lifetime.  The mobile host waits for
       this UPDATE to be acknowledged, and retransmits if necessary, as
       specified in the base specification [2].

   2.  The peer host receives the UPDATE, validates it, and updates any
       local bindings between the HIP association and the mobile host's
       destination address.  The peer host MUST perform an address
       verification by placing a nonce in the ECHO_REQUEST parameter of
       the UPDATE message sent back to the mobile host.  It also
       includes an ESP_INFO parameter with the "Old SPI" and "New SPI"
       parameters both set to the value of the pre-existing incoming
       SPI, and sends this UPDATE (with piggybacked acknowledgment) to
       the mobile host at its new address.  The peer MAY use the new
       address immediately, but it MUST limit the amount of data it
       sends to the address until address verification completes.

   3.  The mobile host completes the readdress by processing the UPDATE
       ACK and echoing the nonce in an ECHO_RESPONSE.  Once the peer
       host receives this ECHO_RESPONSE, it considers the new address to
       be verified and can put it into full use.

   While the peer host is verifying the new address, the new address is
   marked as UNVERIFIED in the interim, and the old address is
   DEPRECATED.  Once the peer host has received a correct reply to its
   UPDATE challenge, it marks the new address as ACTIVE and removes the
   old address.

3.2.2.  Mobility with single SA pair (mobile-initiated rekey)

   The mobile host may decide to rekey the SAs at the same time that it
   is notifying the peer of the new address.  In this case, the above
   procedure described in Figure 3 is slightly modified.  The UPDATE
   message sent from the mobile host includes an ESP_INFO with the "Old
   SPI" set to the previous SPI, the "New SPI" set to the desired new
   SPI value for the incoming SA, and the Keymat Index desired.
   Optionally, the host may include a DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter for a new
   Diffie-Hellman key.  The peer completes the request for rekey as is

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   normally done for HIP rekeying, except that the new address is kept
   as UNVERIFIED until the UPDATE nonce challenge is received as
   described above.  Figure 4 illustrates this scenario.

     Mobile Host                         Peer Host


              Figure 4: Readdress with mobile-initiated rekey

3.2.3.  Host multihoming

   A (mobile or stationary) host may sometimes have more than one
   interface or global address.  The host may notify the peer host of
   the additional interface or address by using the LOCATOR parameter.
   To avoid problems with the ESP anti-replay window, a host SHOULD use
   a different SA for each interface or address used to receive packets
   from the peer host, when multiple locator pairs are being used
   simultaneously rather than sequentially.

   When more than one locator is provided to the peer host, the host
   SHOULD indicate which locator is preferred (the locator on which the
   host prefers to receive traffic).  By default, the addresses used in
   the base exchange are preferred until indicated otherwise.

   In the multihoming case, the sender may also have multiple valid
   locators from which to source traffic.  In practice, a HIP
   association in a multihoming configuration may have both a preferred
   peer locator and a preferred local locator, although rules for source
   address selection should ultimately govern the selection of source
   locator based on the destination locator.

   Although the protocol may allow for configurations in which there is
   an asymmetric number of SAs between the hosts (e.g., one host has two
   interfaces and two inbound SAs, while the peer has one interface and
   one inbound SA), it is RECOMMENDED that inbound and outbound SAs be
   created pairwise between hosts.  When an ESP_INFO arrives to rekey a
   particular outbound SA, the corresponding inbound SA should be also
   rekeyed at that time.  Although asymmetric SA configurations might be
   experimented with, their usage may constrain interoperability at this
   time.  However, it is recommended that implementations attempt to
   support peers that prefer to use non-paired SAs.  It is expected that
   this section and behavior will be modified in future revisions of

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   this protocol, once the issue and its implications are better

   Consider the case between two hosts, one single-homed and one
   multihomed.  The multihomed host may decide to inform the single-
   homed host about its other address.  It is RECOMMENDED that the
   multihomed host set up a new SA pair for use on this new address.  To
   do this, the multihomed host sends a LOCATOR with an ESP_INFO,
   indicating the request for a new SA by setting the "Old SPI" value to
   zero, and the "New SPI" value to the newly created incoming SPI.  A
   Locator Type of "1" is used to associate the new address with the new
   SPI.  The LOCATOR parameter also contains a second Type 1 locator:
   that of the original address and SPI.  To simplify parameter
   processing and avoid explicit protocol extensions to remove locators,
   each LOCATOR parameter MUST list all locators in use on a connection
   (a complete listing of inbound locators and SPIs for the host).  The
   multihomed host waits for a ESP_INFO (new outbound SA) from the peer
   and an ACK of its own UPDATE.  As in the mobility case, the peer host
   must perform an address verification before actively using the new
   address.  Figure 5 illustrates this scenario.

     Multi-homed Host                    Peer Host


                   Figure 5: Basic multihoming scenario

   In multihoming scenarios, it is important that hosts receiving
   UPDATEs associate them correctly with the destination address used in
   the packet carrying the UPDATE.  When processing inbound LOCATORs
   that establish new security associations on an interface with
   multiple addresses, a host uses the destination address of the UPDATE
   containing LOCATOR as the local address to which the LOCATOR plus
   ESP_INFO is targeted.  This is because hosts may send UPDATEs with
   the same (locator) IP address to different peer addresses-- this has
   the effect of creating multiple inbound SAs implicitly affiliated
   with different peer source addresses.

3.2.4.  Site multihoming

   A host may have an interface that has multiple globally reachable IP
   addresses.  Such a situation may be a result of the site having
   multiple upper Internet Service Providers, or just because the site

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   provides all hosts with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.  It is
   desirable that the host can stay reachable with all or any subset of
   the currently available globally routable addresses, independent on
   how they are provided.

   This case is handled the same as if there were different IP
   addresses, described above in Section 3.2.3.  Note that a single
   interface may experience site multihoming while the host itself may
   have multiple interfaces.

   Note that a host may be multi-homed and mobile simultaneously, and
   that a multi-homed host may want to protect the location of some of
   its interfaces while revealing the real IP address of some others.

   This document does not presently specify additional site multihoming
   extensions to HIP; further alignment with the IETF shim6 working
   group may be considered in the future.

3.2.5.  Dual host multihoming

   Consider the case in which both hosts would like to add an additional
   address after the base exchange completes.  In Figure 6, consider
   that host1, which used address addr1a in the base exchange to set up
   SPI1a and SPI2a, wants to add address addr1b.  It would send an
   UPDATE with LOCATOR (containing the address addr1b) to host2, using
   destination address addr2a, and a new set of SPIs would be added
   between hosts 1 and 2 (call them SPI1b and SPI2b-- not shown in the
   figure).  Next, consider host2 deciding to add addr2b to the
   relationship.  Host2 must select one of host1's addresses towards
   which to initiate an UPDATE.  It may choose to initiate an UPDATE to
   addr1a, addr1b, or both.  If it chooses to send to both, then a full
   mesh (four SA pairs) of SAs would exist between the two hosts.  This
   is the most general case; it often may be the case that hosts
   primarily establish new SAs only with the peer's Preferred locator.
   The readdressing protocol is flexible enough to accommodate this

              -<- SPI1a --                         -- SPI2a ->-
      host1 <              > addr1a <---> addr2a <              > host2
              ->- SPI2a --                         -- SPI1a -<-

                             addr1b <---> addr2a  (second SA pair)
                             addr1a <---> addr2b  (third SA pair)
                             addr1b <---> addr2b  (fourth SA pair)

    Figure 6: Dual multihoming case in which each host uses LOCATOR to
                           add a second address

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

3.2.6.  Combined mobility and multihoming

   It looks likely that in the future many mobile hosts will be
   simultaneously mobile and multi-homed, i.e., have multiple mobile
   interfaces.  Furthermore, if the interfaces use different access
   technologies, it is fairly likely that one of the interfaces may
   appear stable (retain its current IP address) while some other(s) may
   experience mobility (undergo IP address change).

   The use of LOCATOR plus ESP_INFO should be flexible enough to handle
   most such scenarios, although more complicated scenarios have not
   been studied so far.

3.2.7.  Using LOCATORs across addressing realms

   It is possible for HIP associations to migrate to a state in which
   both parties are only using locators in different addressing realms.
   For example, the two hosts may initiate the HIP association when both
   are using IPv6 locators, then one host may loose its IPv6
   connectivity and obtain an IPv4 address.  In such a case, some type
   of mechanism for interworking between the different realms must be
   employed; such techniques are outside the scope of the present text.
   The basic problem in this example is that the host readdressing to
   IPv4 does not know a corresponding IPv4 address of the peer.  This
   may be handled (experimentally) by possibly configuring this address
   information manually or in the DNS, or the hosts exchange both IPv4
   and IPv6 addresses in the locator.

3.2.8.  Network renumbering

   It is expected that IPv6 networks will be renumbered much more often
   than most IPv4 networks are.  From an end-host point of view, network
   renumbering is similar to mobility.

3.2.9.  Initiating the protocol in R1 or I2

   A Responder host MAY include a LOCATOR parameter in the R1 packet
   that it sends to the Initiator.  This parameter MUST be protected by
   the R1 signature.  If the R1 packet contains LOCATOR parameters with
   a new Preferred locator, the Initiator SHOULD directly set the new
   Preferred locator to status ACTIVE without performing address
   verification first, and MUST send the I2 packet to the new Preferred
   locator.  The I1 destination address and the new Preferred locator
   may be identical.  All new non-preferred locators must still undergo
   address verification once the base exchange completes.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 16]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

            Initiator                                Responder

                              R1 with LOCATOR
   record additional addresses
   change responder address
                     I2 sent to newly indicated preferred address
                                                     (process normally)
   (process normally, later verification of non-preferred locators)

                     Figure 7: LOCATOR inclusion in R1

   An Initiator MAY include one or more LOCATOR parameters in the I2
   packet, independent of whether there was a LOCATOR parameter in the
   R1 or not.  These parameters MUST be protected by the I2 signature.
   Even if the I2 packet contains LOCATOR parameters, the Responder MUST
   still send the R2 packet to the source address of the I2.  The new
   Preferred locator SHOULD be identical to the I2 source address.  If
   the I2 packet contains LOCATOR parameters, all new locators must
   undergo address verification as usual, and the ESP traffic that
   subsequently follows should use the Preferred locator.

            Initiator                                Responder

                             I2 with LOCATOR
                                                     (process normally)
                                             record additional addresses
                       R2 sent to source address of I2
   (process normally)

                     Figure 8: LOCATOR inclusion in I2

   The I1 and I2 may be arriving from different source addresses if the
   LOCATOR parameter is present in R1.  In this case, implementations
   using pre-created R1 indexed with IP addresses fail the puzzle
   solution of I2 packets inadvertently.  See, for example, the example
   in Appendix A of [2].  As a solution, the responder's puzzle indexing
   mechanism must be flexible enough to accomodate the situation when R1
   includes a LOCATOR parameter.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 17]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

3.3.  Other Considerations

3.3.1.  Address Verification

   When a HIP host receives a set of locators from another HIP host in a
   LOCATOR, it does not necessarily know whether the other host is
   actually reachable at the claimed addresses.  In fact, a malicious
   peer host may be intentionally giving bogus addresses in order to
   cause a packet flood towards the target addresses [9].  Likewise,
   viral software may have compromised the peer host, programming it to
   redirect packets to the target addresses.  Thus, the HIP host must
   first check that the peer is reachable at the new address.

   An additional potential benefit of performing address verification is
   to allow middleboxes in the network along the new path to obtain the
   peer host's inbound SPI.

   Address verification is implemented by the challenger sending some
   piece of unguessable information to the new address, and waiting for
   some acknowledgment from the responder that indicates reception of
   the information at the new address.  This may include exchange of a
   nonce, or generation of a new SPI and observing data arriving on the
   new SPI.

3.3.2.  Credit-Based Authorization

   Credit-Based Authorization (CBA) allows a host to securely use a new
   locator even though the peer's reachability at the address embedded
   in the locator has not yet been verified.  This is accomplished based
   on the following three hypotheses:

   1.  A flooding attacker typically seeks to somehow multiply the
       packets it generates for the purpose of its attack because
       bandwidth is an ample resource for many victims.

   2.  An attacker can often cause unamplified flooding by sending
       packets to its victim, either by directly addressing the victim
       in the packets, or by guiding the packets along a specific path
       by means of an IPv6 Routing header, if Routing headers are not
       filtered by firewalls.

   3.  Consequently, the additional effort required to set up a
       redirection-based flooding attack (without CBA and return
       routability checks) would pay off for the attacker only if
       amplification could be obtained this way.

   On this basis, rather than eliminating malicious packet redirection
   in the first place, Credit-Based Authorization prevents

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 18]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   amplifications.  This is accomplished by limiting the data a host can
   send to an unverified address of a peer by the data recently received
   from that peer.  Redirection-based flooding attacks thus become less
   attractive than, e.g., pure direct flooding, where the attacker
   itself sends bogus packets to the victim.

   Figure 9 illustrates Credit-Based Authorization: Host B measures the
   amount of data recently received from peer A and, when A readdresses,
   sends packets to A's new, unverified address as long as the sum of
   the packet sizes does not exceed the measured, received data volume.
   When insufficient credit is left, B stops sending further packets to
   A until A's address becomes ACTIVE.  The address changes may be due
   to mobility, due to multihoming, or due to any other reason.  Not
   shown in Figure 9 are the results of credit aging (Section 5.6.2), a
   mechanism used to dampen possible time-shifting attacks.

           +-------+                        +-------+
           |   A   |                        |   B   |
           +-------+                        +-------+
               |                                |
       address |------------------------------->| credit += size(packet)
        ACTIVE |                                |
               |------------------------------->| credit += size(packet)
               |<-------------------------------| do not change credit
               |                                |
               + address change                 |
               + address verification starts    |
       address |<-------------------------------| credit -= size(packet)
    UNVERIFIED |------------------------------->| credit += size(packet)
               |<-------------------------------| credit -= size(packet)
               |                                |
               |<-------------------------------| credit -= size(packet)
               |                                X credit < size(packet)
               |                                | => do not send packet!
               + address verification concludes |
       address |                                |
        ACTIVE |<-------------------------------| do not change credit
               |                                |

                      Figure 9: Readdressing Scenario

3.3.3.  Preferred locator

   When a host has multiple locators, the peer host must decide upon
   which to use for outbound packets.  It may be that a host would
   prefer to receive data on a particular inbound interface.  HIP allows
   a particular locator to be designated as a Preferred locator, and

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 19]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   communicated to the peer (see Section 4).

   In general, when multiple locators are used for a session, there is
   the question of using multiple locators for failover only or for
   load-balancing.  Due to the implications of load-balancing on the
   transport layer that still need to be worked out, this draft assumes
   that multiple locators are used primarily for failover.  An
   implementation may use ICMP interactions, reachability checks, or
   other means to detect the failure of a locator.

3.3.4.  Interaction with Security Associations

   This document specifies a new HIP protocol parameter, the LOCATOR
   parameter (see Section 4), that allows the hosts to exchange
   information about their locator(s), and any changes in their
   locator(s).  The logical structure created with LOCATOR parameters
   has three levels: hosts, Security Associations (SAs) indexed by
   Security Parameter Indices (SPIs), and addresses.

   The relation between these levels for an association constructed as
   defined in the base specification [2] and ESP transform [6] is
   illustrated in Figure 10.

              -<- SPI1a --                         -- SPI2a ->-
      host1 <              > addr1a <---> addr2a <              > host2
              ->- SPI2a --                         -- SPI1a -<-

       Figure 10: Relation between hosts, SPIs, and addresses (base

   In Figure 10, host1 and host2 negotiate two unidirectional SAs, and
   each host selects the SPI value for its inbound SA.  The addresses
   addr1a and addr2a are the source addresses that the hosts use in the
   base HIP exchange.  These are the "preferred" (and only) addresses
   conveyed to the peer for use on each SA.  That is, although packets
   sent to any of the hosts' interfaces may be accepted on the inbound
   SA, the peer host in general knows of only the single destination
   address learned in the base exchange (e.g., for host1, it sends a
   packet on SPI2a to addr2a to reach host2), unless other mechanisms
   exist to learn of new addresses.

   In general, the bindings that exist in an implementation
   corresponding to this draft can be depicted as shown in Figure 11.
   In this figure, a host can have multiple inbound SPIs (and, not
   shown, multiple outbound SPIs) associated with another host.
   Furthermore, each SPI may have multiple addresses associated with it.
   These addresses bound to an SPI are not used to lookup the incoming
   SA.  Rather, the addresses are those addresses that are provided to

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 20]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   the peer host, as hints for which addresses to use to reach the host
   on that SPI.  The LOCATOR parameter is used to change the set of
   addresses that a peer associates with a particular SPI.

                   SPI1   - address12
                /           address21
           host -- SPI2   <
                \           address22
                   SPI3   - address31

   Figure 11: Relation between hosts, SPIs, and addresses (general case)

   A host may establish any number of security associations (or SPIs)
   with a peer.  The main purpose of having multiple SPIs with a peer is
   to group the addresses into collections that are likely to experience
   fate sharing.  For example, if the host needs to change its addresses
   on SPI2, it is likely that both address21 and address22 will
   simultaneously become obsolete.  In a typical case, such SPIs may
   correspond with physical interfaces; see below.  Note, however, that
   especially in the case of site multihoming, one of the addresses may
   become unreachable while the other one still works.  In the typical
   case, however, this does not require the host to inform its peers
   about the situation, since even the non-working address still
   logically exists.

   A basic property of HIP SAs is that the inbound IP address is not
   used to lookup the incoming SA.  Therefore, in Figure 11, it may seem
   unnecessary for address31, for example, to be associated only with
   SPI3-- in practice, a packet may arrive to SPI1 via destination
   address address31 as well.  However, the use of different source and
   destination addresses typically leads to different paths, with
   different latencies in the network, and if packets were to arrive via
   an arbitrary destination IP address (or path) for a given SPI, the
   reordering due to different latencies may cause some packets to fall
   outside of the ESP anti-replay window.  For this reason, HIP provides
   a mechanism to affiliate destination addresses with inbound SPIs,
   when there is a concern that anti-replay windows might be violated.
   In this sense, we can say that a given inbound SPI has an "affinity"
   for certain inbound IP addresses, and this affinity is communicated
   to the peer host.  Each physical interface SHOULD have a separate SA,
   unless the ESP anti-replay window is loose.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 21]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   Moreover, even when the destination addresses used for a particular
   SPI are held constant, the use of different source interfaces may
   also cause packets to fall outside of the ESP anti-replay window,
   since the path traversed is often affected by the source address or
   interface used.  A host has no way to influence the source interface
   on which a peer sends its packets on a given SPI.  A host SHOULD
   consistently use the same source interface and address when sending
   to a particular destination IP address and SPI.  For this reason, a
   host may find it useful to change its SPI or at least reset its ESP
   anti-replay window when the peer host readdresses.

   An address may appear on more than one SPI.  This creates no
   ambiguity since the receiver will ignore the IP addresses during SA
   lookup anyway.  However, this document does not specify such cases.

   When the LOCATOR parameter is sent in an UPDATE packet, then the
   receiver will respond with an UPDATE acknowledgment.  When the
   LOCATOR parameter is sent in an R1 or I2 packet, the base exchange
   retransmission mechanism will confirm its successful delivery.
   LOCATORs may experimentally be used in NOTIFY packets; in this case,
   the recipient MUST consider the LOCATOR as informational and not
   immediately change the current preferred address, but can test the
   additional locators when the need arises.  The use of LOCATOR in a
   NOTIFY message may not be compatible with middleboxes.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 22]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

4.  LOCATOR parameter format

   The LOCATOR parameter is a critical parameter as defined by [2].  It
   consists of the standard HIP parameter Type and Length fields, plus
   zero or more Locator sub-parameters.  Each Locator sub-parameter
   contains a Traffic Type, Locator Type, Locator Length, Preferred
   locator bit, Locator Lifetime, and a Locator encoding.  A LOCATOR
   contaning zero Locator fields is permitted but has the effect of
   DEPRECATING all addresses.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       |             Type              |            Length             |
       | Traffic Type   | Locator Type | Locator Length | Reserved   |P|
       |                       Locator Lifetime                        |
       |                            Locator                            |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       .                                                               .
       .                                                               .
       | Traffic Type   | Locator Type | Locator Length | Reserved   |P|
       |                       Locator Lifetime                        |
       |                            Locator                            |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |

   Type:  193

   Length:  Length in octets, excluding Type and Length fields, and
      excluding padding.

   Traffic Type:  Defines whether the locator pertains to HIP signaling,
      user data, or both.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 23]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   Locator Type:  Defines the semantics of the Locator field.

   Locator Length:  Defines the length of the Locator field, in units of
      4-byte words (Locators up to a maximum of 4*255 octets are

   Reserved:  Zero when sent, ignored when received.

   P: Preferred locator.  Set to one if the locator is preferred for
      that Traffic Type; otherwise set to zero.

   Locator Lifetime:  Locator lifetime, in seconds.

   Locator:  The locator whose semantics and encoding are indicated by
      the Locator Type field.  All Locator sub-fields are integral
      multiples of four octets in length.

   The Locator Lifetime indicates how long the following locator is
   expected to be valid.  The lifetime is expressed in seconds.  Each
   locator MUST have a non-zero lifetime.  The address is expected to
   become deprecated when the specified number of seconds has passed
   since the reception of the message.  A deprecated address SHOULD NOT
   be used as an destination address if an alternate (non-deprecated) is
   available and has sufficient scope.

4.1.  Traffic Type and Preferred locator

   The following Traffic Type values are defined:

   0:   Both signaling (HIP control packets) and user data.

   1:   Signaling packets only.

   2:   Data packets only.

   The "P" bit, when set, has scope over the corresponding Traffic Type.
   That is, when a "P" bit is set for Traffic Type "2", for example, it
   means that the locator is preferred for data packets.  If there is a
   conflict (for example, if P bit is set for an address of Type "0" and
   a different address of Type "2"), the more specific Traffic Type rule
   applies (in this case, "2").  By default, the IP addresses used in
   the base exchange are Preferred locators for both signaling and user
   data, unless a new Preferred locator supersedes them.  If no locators
   are indicated as preferred for a given Traffic Type, the
   implementation may use an arbitrary locator from the set of active

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 24]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

4.2.  Locator Type and Locator

   The following Locator Type values are defined, along with the
   associated semantics of the Locator field:

   0:   An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address [8] (128
      bits long).  This locator type is defined primarily for non-ESP-
      based usage.

   1:   The concatenation of an ESP SPI (first 32 bits) followed by an
      IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address (an additional
      128 bits).  This IP address is defined primarily for ESP-based

4.3.  UPDATE packet with included LOCATOR

   A number of combinations of parameters in an UPDATE packet are
   possible (e.g., see Section 3.2).  In this document, procedures are
   defined only for the case in which one LOCATOR and one ESP_INFO
   parameter is used in any HIP packet.  Furthermore, the LOCATOR SHOULD
   list all of the locators that are active on the HIP association
   (including those on SAs not covered by the ESP_INFO parameter).  Any
   UPDATE packet that includes a LOCATOR parameter SHOULD include both
   an HMAC and a HIP_SIGNATURE parameter.  The relationship between the
   announced Locators and any ESP_INFO parameters present in the packet
   is defined in Section 5.2.  The sending of multiple LOCATOR and/or
   ESP_INFO parameters is for further study; receivers may wish to
   experiment with supporting such a possibility.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 25]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

5.  Processing rules

   This section describes rules for sending and receiving the LOCATOR
   parameter, testing address reachability, and using Credit-Based
   Authorization (CBA) on UNVERIFIED locators.

5.1.  Locator data structure and status

   In a typical implementation, each outgoing locator is represented by
   a piece of state that contains the following data:

   o  the actual bit pattern representing the locator,

   o  lifetime (seconds),


   o  the Traffic Type scope of the locator, and

   o  whether the locator is preferred for any particular scope.

   The status is used to track the reachability of the address embedded
   within the LOCATOR parameter:

   UNVERIFIED  indicates that the reachability of the address has not
      been verified yet,

   ACTIVE  indicates that the reachability of the address has been
      verified and the address has not been deprecated,

   DEPRECATED  indicates that the locator lifetime has expired

   The following state changes are allowed:

   UNVERIFIED to ACTIVE  The reachability procedure completes

   UNVERIFIED to DEPRECATED  The locator lifetime expires while the
      locator is UNVERIFIED.

   ACTIVE to DEPRECATED  The locator lifetime expires while the locator
      is ACTIVE.

   ACTIVE to UNVERIFIED  There has been no traffic on the address for
      some time, and the local policy mandates that the address
      reachability must be verified again before starting to use it

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 26]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   DEPRECATED to UNVERIFIED  The host receives a new lifetime for the

   A DEPRECATED address MUST NOT be changed to ACTIVE without first
   verifying its reachability.

   Note that the state of whether a locator is preferred or not is not
   necessarily the same as the value of the Preferred bit in the Locator
   sub-parameter received from the peer.  Peers may recommend certain
   locators to be preferred, but the decision on whether to actually use
   a locator as a preferred locator is a local decision possibly
   influenced by local policy.

5.2.  Sending LOCATORs

   The decision of when to send LOCATORs is basically a local policy
   issue.  However, it is RECOMMENDED that a host sends a LOCATOR
   whenever it recognizes a change of its IP addresses in use on an
   active HIP association, and assumes that the change is going to last
   at least for a few seconds.  Rapidly sending LOCATORs that force the
   peer to change the preferred address SHOULD be avoided.

   When a host decides to inform its peers about changes in its IP
   addresses, it has to decide how to group the various addresses with
   SPIs.  The grouping should consider also whether middlebox
   interaction requires sending the same LOCATOR in separate UPDATEs on
   different paths.  Since each SPI is associated with a different
   Security Association, the grouping policy may also be based on ESP
   anti-replay protection considerations.  In the typical case, simply
   basing the grouping on actual kernel level physical and logical
   interfaces may be the best policy.  Grouping policy is outside of the
   scope of this document.

   Note that the purpose of announcing IP addresses in a LOCATOR is to
   provide connectivity between the communicating hosts.  In most cases,
   tunnels or virtual interfaces such as IPsec tunnel interfaces or
   Mobile IP home addresses provide sub-optimal connectivity.
   Furthermore, it should be possible to replace most tunnels with HIP
   based "non-tunneling", therefore making most virtual interfaces
   fairly unnecessary in the future.  Therefore, virtual interfaces
   SHOULD NOT be announced in general.  On the other hand, there are
   clearly situations where tunnels are used for diagnostic and/or
   testing purposes.  In such and other similar cases announcing the IP
   addresses of virtual interfaces may be appropriate.

   Hosts MUST NOT announce broadcast or multicast addresses in LOCATORs.
   Link-local addresses MAY be announced to peers that are known to be
   neighbors on the same link, such as when the IP destination address

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 27]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   of a peer is also link-local.  The announcement of link-local
   addresses in this case is a policy decision; link-local addresses
   used as Preferred locators will create reachability problems when the
   host moves to another link.  In any case, link-local addresses MUST
   NOT be announced to a peer unless that peer is known to be on the
   same link.

   Once the host has decided on the groups and assignment of addresses
   to the SPIs, it creates a LOCATOR parameter that serves as a complete
   representation of the addresses and affiliated SPIs intended for
   active use.  We now describe a few cases introduced in Section 3.2.
   We assume that the Traffic Type for each locator is set to "0" (other
   values for Traffic Type may be specified in documents that separate
   HIP control plane from data plane traffic).  Other mobility and
   multihoming cases are possible but are left for further

   1.  Host mobility with no multihoming and no rekeying.  The mobile
       host creates a single UPDATE containing a single ESP_INFO with a
       single LOCATOR parameter.  The ESP_INFO contains the current
       value of the SPI in both the "Old SPI" and "New SPI" fields.  The
       LOCATOR contains a single Locator with a "Locator Type" of "1";
       the SPI must match that of the ESP_INFO.  The Preferred bit
       SHOULD be set and the "Locator Lifetime" is set according to
       local policy.  The UPDATE also contains a SEQ parameter as usual.
       This packet is retransmitted as defined in the HIP protocol
       specification [2].  The UPDATE should be sent to the peer's
       preferred IP address with an IP source address corresponding to
       the address in the LOCATOR parameter.

   2.  Host mobility with no multihoming but with rekeying.  The mobile
       host creates a single UPDATE containing a single ESP_INFO with a
       single LOCATOR parameter (with a single address).  The ESP_INFO
       contains the current value of the SPI in the "Old SPI" and the
       new value of the SPI in the "New SPI", and a "Keymat Index" as
       selected by local policy.  Optionally, the host may choose to
       initiate a Diffie Hellman rekey by including a DIFFIE_HELLMAN
       parameter.  The LOCATOR contains a single Locator with "Locator
       Type" of "1"; the SPI must match that of the "New SPI" in the
       ESP_INFO.  Otherwise, the steps are identical to the case when no
       rekeying is initiated.

   3.  Host multihoming (addition of an address).  We only describe the
       simple case of adding an additional address to a (previously)
       single-homed, non-mobile host.  The host SHOULD set up a new SA
       pair between this new address and the preferred address of the
       peer host.  To do this, the multihomed host creates a new inbound
       SA and creates a new SPI.  For the outgoing UPDATE message, it

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 28]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

       inserts an ESP_INFO parameter with an "Old SPI" field of "0", a
       "New SPI" field corresponding to the new SPI, and a "Keymat
       Index" as selected by local policy.  The host adds to the UPDATE
       message a LOCATOR with two Type "1" Locators: the original
       address and SPI active on the association, and the new address
       and new SPI being added (with the SPI matching the "New SPI"
       contained in the ESP_INFO).  The Preferred bit SHOULD be set
       depending on the policy to tell the peer host which of the two
       locators is preferred.  The UPDATE also contains a SEQ parameter
       and optionally a DIFFIE_HELLMAN parameter, and follows rekeying
       procedures with respect to this new address.  The UPDATE message
       SHOULD be sent to the peer's Preferred address with a source
       address corresponding to the new locator.

   The sending of multiple LOCATORs, locators with Locator Type "0", and
   multiple ESP_INFO parameters is for further study.  Note that the
   inclusion of LOCATOR in an R1 packet requires the use of Type "0"
   locators since no SAs are set up at that point.

5.3.  Handling received LOCATORs

   A host SHOULD be prepared to receive a LOCATOR parameter in the
   following HIP packets: R1, I2, UPDATE, and NOTIFY.

   This document describes sending both ESP_INFO and LOCATOR parameters
   in an UPDATE.  The ESP_INFO parameter is included when there is a
   need to rekey or key a new SPI, and is otherwise included for the
   possible benefit of HIP-aware middleboxes.  The LOCATOR parameter
   contains a complete map of the locators that the host wishes to make
   or keep active for the HIP association.

   In general, the processing of a LOCATOR depends upon the packet type
   in which it is included.  Here, we describe only the case in which
   ESP_INFO is present and a single LOCATOR and ESP_INFO are sent in an
   UPDATE message; other cases are for further study.  The steps below
   cover each of the cases described in Section 5.2.

   The processing of ESP_INFO and LOCATOR parameters is intended to be
   modular and support future generalization to the inclusion of
   multiple ESP_INFO and/or multiple LOCATOR parameters.  A host SHOULD
   first process the ESP_INFO before the LOCATOR, since the ESP_INFO may
   contain a new SPI value mapped to an existing SPI, while a Type 1
   locator will only contain reference to the new SPI.

   When a host receives a validated HIP UPDATE with a LOCATOR and
   ESP_INFO parameter, it processes the ESP_INFO as follows.  The
   ESP_INFO parameter indicates whether a SA is being rekeyed, created,
   deprecated, or just identified for the benefit of middleboxes.  The

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 29]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   host examines the Old SPI and New SPI values in the ESP_INFO

   1.  (no rekeying) If the Old SPI is equal to the New SPI and both
       correspond to an existing SPI, the ESP_INFO is gratuitous
       (provided for middleboxes) and no rekeying is necessary.

   2.  (rekeying) If the Old SPI indicates an existing SPI and the New
       SPI is a different non-zero value, the existing SA is being
       rekeyed and the host follows HIP ESP rekeying procedures by
       creating a new outbound SA with an SPI corresponding to the New
       SPI, with no addresses bound to this SPI.  Note that locators in
       the LOCATOR parameter will reference this new SPI instead of the
       old SPI.

   3.  (new SA) If the Old SPI value is zero and the New SPI is a new
       non-zero value, then a new SA is being requested by the peer.
       This case is also treated like a rekeying event; the receiving
       host must create a new SA and respond with an UPDATE ACK.

   4.  (deprecating of SA) If the Old SPI indicates an existing SPI and
       the New SPI is zero, the SA is being deprecated and all locators
       uniquely bound to the SPI are put into DEPRECATED state.

   If none of the above cases apply, a protocol error has occurred and
   the processing of the UPDATE is stopped.

   Next, the locators in the LOCATOR parameter are processed.  For each
   locator listed in the LOCATOR parameter, check that the address
   therein is a legal unicast or anycast address.  That is, the address
   MUST NOT be a broadcast or multicast address.  Note that some
   implementations MAY accept addresses that indicate the local host,
   since it may be allowed that the host runs HIP with itself.

   The below assumes that all locators are of Type 1 with a Traffic Type
   of 0; other cases are for further study.

   For each Type 1 address listed in the LOCATOR parameter, the host
   checks whether the address is already bound to the SPI indicated.  If
   the address is already bound, its lifetime is updated.  If the status
   of the address is DEPRECATED, the status is changed to UNVERIFIED.
   If the address is not already bound, the address is added, and its
   status is set to UNVERIFIED.  Mark all addresses corresponding to the
   SPI that were NOT listed in the LOCATOR parameter as DEPRECATED.

   As a result, at the end of processing, the addresses listed in the
   LOCATOR parameter have either a state of UNVERIFIED or ACTIVE, and
   any old addresses on the old SA not listed in the LOCATOR parameter

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 30]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   have a state of DEPRECATED.

   Once the host has processed the locators, if the LOCATOR parameter
   contains a new Preferred locator, the host SHOULD initiate a change
   of the Preferred locator.  This requires that the host first verifies
   reachability of the associated address, and only then changes the
   Preferred locator.  See Section 5.5.

   If a host receives a locator with an unsupported Locator Type, when
   such locator is also declared to be the Preferred locator for the
   peer, the host SHOULD send a NOTIFY error with a Notify Message Type
   of LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED, with the Notification Data field
   containing the locator(s) that the receiver failed to process.
   Otherwise, a host MAY send a NOTIFY error if a (non-preferred)
   locator with an unsupported Locator Type is received in a LOCATOR

5.4.  Verifying address reachability

   A host MUST verify the reachability of an UNVERIFIED address.  The
   status of a newly learned address MUST initially be set to UNVERIFIED
   unless the new address is advertised in a R1 packet as a new
   Preferred locator.  A host MAY also want to verify the reachability
   of an ACTIVE address again after some time, in which case it would
   set the status of the address to UNVERIFIED and reinitiate address

   A host typically starts the address-verification procedure by sending
   a nonce to the new address.  For example, when the host is changing
   its SPI and is sending an ESP_INFO to the peer, the new SPI value
   SHOULD be random and the value MAY be copied into an ECHO_REQUEST
   sent in the rekeying UPDATE.  However, if the host is not changing
   its SPI, it MAY still use the ECHO_REQUEST parameter in an UPDATE
   message sent to the new address.  A host MAY also use other message
   exchanges as confirmation of the address reachability.

   Note that in the case of receiving a LOCATOR in an R1 and replying
   with an I2 to the new address in the LOCATOR, receiving the
   corresponding R2 is sufficient proof of reachability for the
   Responder's preferred address.  Since further address verification of
   such address can impede the HIP base exchange, a host MUST NOT
   separately verify reachability of a new Preferred locator that was
   received on a R1.

   In some cases, it MAY be sufficient to use the arrival of data on a
   newly advertised SA as implicit address reachability verification as
   depicted in Figure 13, instead of waiting for the confirmation via a
   HIP packet.  In this case, a host advertising a new SPI as part of

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 31]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   its address reachability check SHOULD be prepared to receive traffic
   on the new SA.

     Mobile host                                   Peer host

                                                   prepare incoming SA
                      new SPI in ESP_INFO (UPDATE)
   switch to new outgoing SA
                           data on new SA
                                                   mark address ACTIVE

              Figure 13: Address activation via use of new SA

   When address verification is in progress for a new Preferred locator,
   the host SHOULD select a different locator listed as ACTIVE, if one
   such locator is available, to continue communications until address
   verification completes.  Alternatively, the host MAY use the new
   Preferred locator while in UNVERIFIED status to the extent Credit-
   Based Authorization permits.  Credit-Based Authorization is explained
   in Section 5.6.  Once address verification succeeds, the status of
   the new Preferred locator changes to ACTIVE.

5.5.  Changing the Preferred locator

   A host MAY want to change the Preferred outgoing locator for
   different reasons, e.g., because traffic information or ICMP error
   messages indicate that the currently used preferred address may have
   become unreachable.  Another reason may be due to receiving a LOCATOR
   parameter that has the P-bit set.

   To change the Preferred locator, the host initiates the following

   1.  If the new Preferred locator has ACTIVE status, the Preferred
       locator is changed and the procedure succeeds.

   2.  If the new Preferred locator has UNVERIFIED status, the host
       starts to verify its reachability.  The host SHOULD use a
       different locator listed as ACTIVE until address verification
       completes if one such locator is available.  Alternatively, the
       host MAY use the new Preferred locator, even though in UNVERIFIED
       status, to the extent Credit-Based Authorization permits.  Once
       address verification succeeds, the status of the new Preferred
       locator changes to ACTIVE and its use is no longer governed by
       Credit-Based Authorization.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 32]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   3.  If the peer host has not indicated a preference for any address,
       then the host picks one of the peer's ACTIVE addresses randomly
       or according to policy.  This case may arise if, for example,
       ICMP error messages arrive that deprecate the Preferred locator,
       but the peer has not yet indicated a new Preferred locator.

   4.  If the new Preferred locator has DEPRECATED status and there is
       at least one non-deprecated address, the host selects one of the
       non-deprecated addresses as a new Preferred locator and
       continues.  If the selected address is UNVERIFIED, this includes
       address verification as described above.

5.6.  Credit-Based Authorization

   To prevent redirection-based flooding attacks, the use of a Credit-
   Based Authorization (CBA) approach is mandatory when a host sends
   data to an UNVERIFIED locator.  The following algorithm meets the
   security considerations for prevention of amplification and time-
   shifting attacks.  Other forms of credit aging, and other values for
   the CreditAgingFactor and CreditAgingInterval parameters in
   particular, are for further study, and so are the advanced CBA
   techniques specified in [10].

5.6.1.  Handling Payload Packets

   A host maintains a "credit counter" for each of its peers.  Whenever
   a packet arrives from a peer, the host SHOULD increase that peer's
   credit counter by the size of the received packet.  When the host has
   a packet to be sent to the peer, and when the peer's Preferred
   locator is listed as UNVERIFIED and no alternative locator with
   status ACTIVE is available, the host checks whether it can send the
   packet to the UNVERIFIED locator.  The packet SHOULD be sent if the
   value of the credit counter is higher than the size of the outbound
   packet.  If the credit counter is too low, the packet MUST be
   discarded or buffered until address verification succeeds.  When a
   packet is sent to a peer at an UNVERIFIED locator, the peer's credit
   counter MUST be reduced by the size of the packet.  The peer's credit
   counter is not affected by packets that the host sends to an ACTIVE
   locator of that peer.

   Figure 14 depicts the actions taken by the host when a packet is
   received.  Figure 15 shows the decision chain in the event a packet
   is sent.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 33]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

          |       +----------------+               +---------------+
          |       |    Increase    |               |    Deliver    |
          +-----> | credit counter |-------------> |   packet to   |
                  | by packet size |               |  application  |
                  +----------------+               +---------------+

       Figure 14: Receiving Packets with Credit-Based Authorization

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 34]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

        |          _________________
        |         /                 \                 +---------------+
        |        /  Is the preferred \       No       |  Send packet  |
        +-----> | destination address |-------------> |  to preferred |
                 \    UNVERIFIED?    /                |    address    |
                  \_________________/                 +---------------+
                           | Yes
                  /                 \                 +---------------+
                 /   Does an ACTIVE  \      Yes       |  Send packet  |
                | destination address |-------------> |   to ACTIVE   |
                 \       exist?      /                |    address    |
                  \_________________/                 +---------------+
                           | No
                  /                 \                 +---------------+
                 /   Credit counter  \       No       |               |
                |          >=         |-------------> |  Drop packet  |
                 \    packet size?   /                |               |
                  \_________________/                 +---------------+
                           | Yes
                   +---------------+                  +---------------+
                   | Reduce credit |                  |  Send packet  |
                   |  counter by   |----------------> | to preferred  |
                   |  packet size  |                  |    address    |
                   +---------------+                  +---------------+

        Figure 15: Sending Packets with Credit-Based Authorization

5.6.2.  Credit Aging

   A host ensures that the credit counters it maintains for its peers
   gradually decrease over time.  Such "credit aging" prevents a
   malicious peer from building up credit at a very slow speed and using
   this, all at once, for a severe burst of redirected packets.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 35]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   Credit aging may be implemented by multiplying credit counters with a
   factor, CreditAgingFactor (a fractional value less than one), in
   fixed time intervals of CreditAgingInterval length.  Choosing
   appropriate values for CreditAgingFactor and CreditAgingInterval is
   important to ensure that a host can send packets to an address in
   state UNVERIFIED even when the peer sends at a lower rate than the
   host itself.  When CreditAgingFactor or CreditAgingInterval are too
   small, the peer's credit counter might be too low to continue sending
   packets until address verification concludes.

   The parameter values proposed in this document are as follows:

      CreditAgingFactor        7/8
      CreditAgingInterval      5 seconds

   These parameter values work well when the host transfers a file to
   the peer via a TCP connection and the end-to-end round-trip time does
   not exceed 500 milliseconds.  Alternative credit-aging algorithms may
   use other parameter values or different parameters, which may even be
   dynamically established.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 36]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

6.  Security Considerations

   The HIP mobility mechanism provides a secure means of updating a
   host's IP address via HIP UPDATE packets.  Upon receipt, a HIP host
   cryptographically verifies the sender of an UPDATE, so forging or
   replaying a HIP UPDATE packet is very difficult (see [2]).
   Therefore, security issues reside in other attack domains.  The two
   we consider are malicious redirection of legitimate connections as
   well as redirection-based flooding attacks using this protocol.  This
   can be broken down into the following:

      Impersonation attacks

         - direct conversation with the misled victim

         - man-in-the-middle attack

      DoS attacks

         - flooding attacks (== bandwidth-exhaustion attacks)

            * tool 1: direct flooding

            * tool 2: flooding by zombies

            * tool 2: redirection-based flooding

         - memory-exhaustion attacks

         - computational exhaustion attacks

   We consider these in more detail in the following sections.

   In Section 6.1 and Section 6.2, we assume that all users are using
   HIP.  In Section 6.3 we consider the security ramifications when we
   have both HIP and non-HIP users.  Security considerations for Credit-
   Based Authorization are discussed in [11].

6.1.  Impersonation attacks

   An attacker wishing to impersonate will try to mislead its victim
   into directly communicating with them, or carry out a man in the
   middle attack between the victim and the victim's desired
   communication peer.  Without mobility support, both attack types are
   possible only if the attacker resides on the routing path between its
   victim and the victim's desired communication peer, or if the
   attacker tricks its victim into initiating the connection over an
   incorrect routing path (e.g., by acting as a router or using spoofed

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 37]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   DNS entries).

   The HIP extensions defined in this specification change the situation
   in that they introduce an ability to redirect a connection (like
   IPv6), both before and after establishment.  If no precautionary
   measures are taken, an attacker could misuse the redirection feature
   to impersonate a victim's peer from any arbitrary location.  The
   authentication and authorization mechanisms of the HIP base exchange
   [2] and the signatures in the UPDATE message prevent this attack.
   Furthermore, ownership of a HIP association is securely linked to a
   HIP HI/HIT.  If an attacker somehow uses a bug in the implementation
   or weakness in some protocol to redirect a HIP connection, the
   original owner can always reclaim their connection (they can always
   prove ownership of the private key associated with their public HI).

   MitM attacks are always possible if the attacker is present during
   the initial HIP base exchange and if the hosts do not authenticate
   each other's identities.  However, once the opportunistic base
   exchange has taken place, even a MitM cannot steal the HIP connection
   anymore because it is very difficult for an attacker to create an
   UPDATE packet (or any HIP packet) that will be accepted as a
   legitimate update.  UPDATE packets use HMAC and are signed.  Even
   when an attacker can snoop packets to obtain the SPI and HIT/HI, they
   still cannot forge an UPDATE packet without knowledge of the secret

6.2.  Denial of Service attacks

6.2.1.  Flooding Attacks

   The purpose of a denial-of-service attack is to exhaust some resource
   of the victim such that the victim ceases to operate correctly.  A
   denial-of-service attack can aim at the victim's network attachment
   (flooding attack), its memory, or its processing capacity.  In a
   flooding attack the attacker causes an excessive number of bogus or
   unwanted packets to be sent to the victim, which fills their
   available bandwidth.  Note that the victim does not necessarily need
   to be a node; it can also be an entire network.  The attack basically
   functions the same way in either case.

   An effective DoS strategy is distributed denial of service (DDoS).
   Here, the attacker conventionally distributes some viral software to
   as many nodes as possible.  Under the control of the attacker, the
   infected nodes, or "zombies", jointly send packets to the victim.
   With such an 'army', an attacker can take down even very high
   bandwidth networks/victims.

   With the ability to redirect connections, an attacker could realize a

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 38]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   DDoS attack without having to distribute viral code.  Here, the
   attacker initiates a large download from a server, and subsequently
   redirects this download to its victim.  The attacker can repeat this
   with multiple servers.  This threat is mitigated through reachability
   checks and credit-based authorization.  Both strategies do not
   eliminate flooding attacks per se, but they preclude: (i) their use
   from a location off the path towards the flooded victim; and (ii) any
   amplification in the number and size of the redirected packets.  As a
   result, the combination of a reachability check and credit-based
   authorization lowers a HIP redirection-based flooding attack to the
   level of a direct flooding attack in which the attacker itself sends
   the flooding traffic to the victim.

6.2.2.  Memory/Computational exhaustion DoS attacks

   We now consider whether or not the proposed extensions to HIP add any
   new DoS attacks (consideration of DoS attacks using the base HIP
   exchange and updates is discussed in [2]).  A simple attack is to
   send many UPDATE packets containing many IP addresses that are not
   flagged as preferred.  The attacker continues to send such packets
   until the number of IP addresses associated with the attacker's HI
   crashes the system.  Therefore, there SHOULD be a limit to the number
   of IP addresses that can be associated with any HI.  Other forms of
   memory/computationally exhausting attacks via the HIP UPDATE packet
   are handled in the base HIP draft [2].

   A central server that has to deal with a large number of mobile
   clients may consider increasing the SA lifetimes to try to slow down
   the rate of rekeying UPDATEs or increasing the cookie difficulty to
   slow down the rate of attack-oriented connections.

6.3.  Mixed deployment environment

   We now assume an environment with both HIP and non-HIP aware hosts.
   Four cases exist.

   1.  A HIP host redirects its connection onto a non-HIP host.  The
       non-HIP host will drop the reachability packet, so this is not a
       threat unless the HIP host is a MitM that could somehow respond
       successfully to the reachability check.

   2.  A non-HIP host attempts to redirect their connection onto a HIP
       host.  This falls into IPv4 and IPv6 security concerns, which are
       outside the scope of this document.

   3.  A non-HIP host attempts to steal a HIP host's session (assume
       that Secure Neighbor Discovery is not active for the following).
       The non-HIP host contacts the service that a HIP host has a

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 39]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

       connection with and then attempts to change its IP address to
       steal the HIP host's connection.  What will happen in this case
       is implementation dependent but such a request should fail by
       being ignored or dropped.  Even if the attack were successful,
       the HIP host could reclaim its connection via HIP.

   4.  A HIP host attempts to steal a non-HIP host's session.  A HIP
       host could spoof the non-HIP host's IP address during the base
       exchange or set the non-HIP host's IP address as its preferred
       address via an UPDATE.  Other possibilities exist but a simple
       solution is to prevent use of HIP address check information to
       influence non-HIP sessions.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 40]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a LOCATOR parameter for the Host Identity
   Protocol [2].  This parameter is defined in Section 4 with a Type of

   This document also defines a LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED Notify Message
   Type as defined in the Host Identity Protocol specification [2].
   This parameter is defined in Section 5.3 with a Value of 46.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 41]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

8.  Authors and Acknowledgments

   Pekka Nikander originated this Internet Draft.  Tom Henderson, Jari
   Arkko, Greg Perkins, and Christian Vogt have each contributed
   sections to this draft.

   The authors thank Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Jeff Ahrenholz, and Jan
   Melen for many improvements to the draft.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 42]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

9.  References

9.1.  Normative references

   [1]   Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
         Architecture", RFC 4423, August 2005.

   [2]   Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-07
         (work in progress), February 2007.

   [3]   Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
         Rendezvous Extension", draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05 (work in
         progress), June 2006.

   [4]   Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303,
         December 2005.

   [5]   Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
         version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [6]   Jokela, P., "Using ESP transport format with HIP",
         draft-ietf-hip-esp-05 (work in progress), February 2007.

   [7]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [8]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
         Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

9.2.  Informative references

   [9]   Nikander, P., Arkko, J., Aura, T., Montenegro, G., and E.
         Nordmark, "Mobile IP Version 6 Route Optimization Security
         Design Background", RFC 4225, December 2005.

   [10]  Vogt, C. and J. Arkko, "Credit-Based Authorization for Mobile
         IPv6 Early Binding Updates",
         draft-vogt-mobopts-credit-based-authorization-00 (work in
         progress), February 2005.

   [11]  Vogt, C. and J. Arkko, "Credit-Based Authorization for
         Concurrent Reachability Verification",
         draft-vogt-mobopts-simple-cba-00 (work in progress),
         February 2006.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 43]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

Appendix A.  Changes from previous versions

A.1.  From nikander-hip-mm-00 to nikander-hip-mm-01

   The actual protocol has been largely revised, based on the new
   symmetric New SPI (NES) design adopted in the base protocol draft
   version -08.  There are no more separate REA, AC or ACR packets, but
   their functionality has been folded into the NES packet.  At the same
   time, it has become possible to send REA parameters in R1 and I2.

   The Forwarding Agent functionality was removed, since it looks like
   that it will be moved to the proposed HIP Research Group.  Hence,
   there will be two other documents related to that, a simple
   Rendezvous server document (WG item) and a Forwarding Agent document
   (RG item).

A.2.  From nikander-hip-mm-01 to nikander-hip-mm-02

   Alignment with base-00 draft (use of UPDATE and NOTIFY packets).

   The "logical interface" concept was dropped, and the SA/SPI was
   identified as the protocol component to which a HIP association binds
   addresses to.

   The RR was (again) made recommended, not mandatory, able to be
   administratively overridden.

A.3.  From -02 to draft-ietf-hip-mm-00

   REA parameter type value is now "3" (was TBD before).

   Recommend that in multihoming situations, that inbound/outbound SAs
   are paired to avoid ambiguity when rekeying them.

   Clarified that multihoming scenario for now was intended for failover
   instead of load-balancing, due to transport layer issues.

   Clarified that if HIP negotiates base exchange using link local
   addresses, that a host SHOULD provide its peer with a globally
   reachable address.

   Clarified whether REAs sent for existing SPIs update the full set of
   addresses associated with that SPI, or only perform an incremental
   (additive) update.  REAs for an existing SPI should list all current
   addresses for that SPI, and any addresses previously in use on the
   SPI but not in the new REA parameter should be DEPRECATED.

   Clarified that address verification pertains to *outgoing* addresses.

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 44]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   When discussing inclusion of REA in I2, the draft stated "The
   Responder MUST make sure that the puzzle solution is valid BOTH for
   the initial IP destination address used for I1 and for the new
   preferred address."  However, this statement conflicted with Appendix
   D of the base specification, so it has been removed for now.

A.4.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-00 to -01

   Introduction section reorganized.  Some of the scope of the document
   relating to multihoming was reduced.

   Removed empty appendix "Implementation experiences"

   Renamed REA parameter to LOCATOR and aligned to the discussion on
   redefining this parameter that occurred on the RG mailing list.

   Aligned with decoupling of ESP from base spec.

A.5.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-01 to -02

   Aligned with draft-ietf-hip-base-03 and draft-ietf-hip-esp-00

   Address verification is a MUST (C. Vogt, list post on 06/12/05)

   If UPDATE exceeds MTU because of too many locators, do not split into
   multiple UPDATEs, but instead rely on IP fragmentation (C. Vogt, list
   post on 06/12/05)

   New value for LOCATOR parameter type (193), per 05/31/05 discussion
   on the WG list

   Various additions related to Credit-Based Authorization due to C.

   Security section contributed by Greg Perkins, with subsequent editing
   from C. Vogt and P. Nikander

   Reorganization according to RFC 4101 guidance on writing protocol

   Open issue: LOCATOR parameter semantics (implicit/explicit removal)

A.6.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-02 to -03

   Aligned with draft-ietf-hip-base-05 and draft-ietf-hip-esp-02

   Further clarification that the scope of this draft is primarily
   limited to the case in which ESP is used

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 45]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

   New layered architectural overview in Section 3

   Limited the scope of multihoming description to just a single host
   adding a single new address; other cases left for further study

   Require that ESP_INFO be included on all UPDATE packets relating to
   mobility and multihoming (for middleboxes)

   New convention for use of "Old SPI" and "New SPI" values to signal
   new SPIs (Old SPI == 0, New SPI != 0) and gratuitous ESP_INFOs with
   no rekeying (Old SPI == New SPI != 0).

   Only specify the use of Locator Type of 1 when using ESP, for
   simplicity of receiver processing.

   Removed multiple addresses in LOCATOR example of section 3.2.2,
   because it is not clear that the example is correct (requires further

   Corrected mention of sending ECHO_REQUEST nonce in R2 (should be sent
   in separate UPDATE because R2 is not an acknowledged packet)

   Removed first four paragraphs of Section 5, which were redundant with
   previous introductory material.

   Rewrote Sections 5.2 and 5.3 on sending and receiving LOCATOR, to
   more explicitly cover the scenario scope of this document.

   Removed unwritten "Policy Considerations" section

A.7.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-03 to -04

   Responded to numerous WGLC comments and corrections from Miika Komu
   (responses on the HIP mailing list)

A.8.  From draft-ietf-hip-mm-04 to -05

   Responded to Jeffrey Hutzelman comments as part of IETF secdir
   review, and discussion with Christian Vogt.  This includes clarifying
   how UPDATE retransmissions are handled, a clarification on Credit-
   Based Authorization flooding attacks, how to handle unsupported
   Locator Type values, and the announcement of link-local addresses.

   Handled several editorial comments from Marcelo Bagnulo Braun
   regarding the host multihoming procedures.

   New use-case section by Marcelo Bagnulo Braun to clarify the
   multihoming case of sequential address usage (to be provided)

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 46]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

Author's Address

   Tom Henderson
   The Boeing Company
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA


Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 47]
Internet-Draft        HIP Mobility and Multihoming            March 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Henderson (editor)      Expires September 3, 2007              [Page 48]