IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming                                T. Kivinen
(mobike)                                                   Safenet, Inc.
Internet-Draft                                             H. Tschofenig
Expires: July 1, 2005                                            Siemens
                                                       December 31, 2004

                     Design of the MOBIKE Protocol

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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-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 July 1, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).


   The MOBIKE (IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming) working group is
   developing protocol extensions to the Internet Key Exchange Protocol
   version 2 (IKEv2) to enable its use in the context where there are
   multiple IP addresses per host or where IP addresses of an IPsec host
   change over time (for example due to mobility).

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   This document discusses the involved network entities, and the
   relationship between IKEv2 signaling and information provided by
   other protocols and the rest of the network.  Design decisions for
   the base MOBIKE protocol, background information and discussions
   within the working group are recorded.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1   Mobility Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2   Multihoming Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3   Multihomed Laptop Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1   Indicating Support for MOBIKE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2   Changing a Preferred Address and Multihoming Support . . . 12
       5.2.1   Storing a single or multiple addresses . . . . . . . . 13
       5.2.2   Indirect or Direct Indication  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.2.3   Connectivity Tests using IKEv2 Dead-Peer Detection . . 15
     5.3   Simultaneous Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.4   NAT Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.5   Changing addresses or changing the paths . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.6   Return Routability Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.7   Employing MOBIKE results in other protocols  . . . . . . . 21
     5.8   Scope of SA changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.9   Zero Address Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.10  IPsec Tunnel or Transport Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.11  Message Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.1   Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 32

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

1.  Introduction

   IKEv2 is used for performing mutual authentication and establishing
   and maintaining IPsec security associations (SAs).  IKEv2 establishes
   both cryptographic state (such as session keys and algorithms) as
   well as non-cryptographic information (such as IP addresses).

   The current IKEv2 and IPsec documents explicitly say that the IPsec
   and IKE SAs are created implicitly between the IP address pair used
   during the protocol execution when establishing the IKEv2 SA.  This
   means that there is only one IP address pair stored for the IKEv2 SA,
   and this single IP address pair is used as an outer endpoint address
   for tunnel mode IPsec SAs.  After the IKE SA is created there is no
   way to change them.

   There are scenarios where this IP address might change, even
   frequently.  In some cases the problem could be solved by rekeying
   all the IPsec and IKE SAs after the IP address has changed.  However,
   this can be problematic, as the device might be too slow to rekey the
   SAs that often, and other scenarios the rekeying and required IKEv2
   authentication might require user interaction (SecurID cards etc).
   Due to these reasons, a mechanism to update the IP addresses tied to
   the IPsec and IKEv2 SAs is needed.  MOBIKE provides solution to the
   problem of the updating the IP addresses stored with IKE SAs and
   IPsec SAs.

   The charter of the MOBIKE working group requires IKEv2
   [I-D.ietf-ipsec-ikev2], and as IKEv2 assumes that the RFC2401bis
   architecture [I-D.ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis] is used, all protocols
   developed will use both IKEv2 and RFC2401bis.  No effort is to be
   made to make protocols for IKEv1 [RFC2409] or old RFC2401
   architecture [RFC2401].

   This document is structured as follows.  After introducing some
   important terms in Section 2 we list a few scenarios in Section 3, to
   illustrate possible deployment environments.  MOBIKE depends on
   information from other sources (e.g., detect an address change) which
   are discussed in Section 4.  Finally, Section 5 discusses design
   considerations effecting the MOBIKE protocol.  The document concludes
   with security considerations in Section 6.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

2.  Terminology

   This section introduces some terms in useful for a MOBIKE protocol.


      Within this document we refer to IKEv2 endpoints as peers.  A peer
      implements MOBIKE and therefore IKEv2.

   Available address:

      This definition is reused from
      [I-D.arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection] and refers to addresses
      which are available by an peer.  A few conditions must hold before
      an address in such a state.

   Locally Operational Address:

      An available address is said to be locally operational when its
      use is known to be possible locally.  This definition is taken
      from [I-D.arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection].

   Operational address pair:

      A pair of operational addresses are said to be an operational
      address pair, iff bidirectional connectivity can be shown between
      the two addresses.  Note that sometimes it is necessary to
      consider a 5-tuple when connectivity between two endpoints need to
      be tested.  This differentiation might be necessary to address
      load balancers, certain Network Address Translation types or
      specific firewalls.  This definition is taken from
      [I-D.arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection] and enhanced to fit the
      MOBIKE context.  Although it is possible to further differentiate
      unidirectional and bidirectional operational address pairs only
      bidirectional connectivity is relevant for this document and
      unidirectional connectivity is out of scope.


      The route taken by the MOBIKE and/or IPsec packets sent via the IP
      address of one peer to a specific destination address of the other
      peer.  Note that the path might be effected not only by the source
      and destination IP addresses but also by the selected transport
      protocol and transport protocol identifier.  Since MOBIKE and
      IPsec packets have a different appearance on the wire they might
      be routed along a different path.  This definition is taken from
      [RFC2960] and modified to fit the MOBIKE context.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   Primary Path:

      The primary path is the destination and source address that will
      be put into a packet outbound to the peer by default.  This
      definition is taken from [RFC2960] and modified to fit the MOBIKE

   Preferred Address:

      An address on which a peer prefers to receive MOBIKE messages and
      IPsec protected data traffic.  A given peer has only one active
      preferred address at a given point in time (ignoring the small
      time period where it needs to switch from the old preferred
      address to a new preferred address).  This definition is taken
      from [I-D.ietf-hip-mm] and modified to fit the MOBIKE context.

   Peer Address Set:

      A subset of locally operational addresses that will sent
      communicated to another peer.  A policy available at the peer
      indicates which addresses to include in the peer address set.
      Such a policy might be impacted by manual configuration or by
      interaction with other protocols which indicate newly available
      addresses.  Note that the addresses in the peer address set might
      change over time.

   Preferred Address Pair:

      This address pair taken from the peer address set is used for
      communication.  The preferred address pair is used (1) for MOBIKE
      communication where only two IP addresses are used and (2) as the
      outer IP addresses (source and destination IP address) of the
      IPsec packet in tunnel mode.

   Terminology for different NAT types, such as Full Cone, Restricted
   Cone, Port Restricted Cone and Symmetric, can be found in Section 5
   of [RFC3489].  For mobility related terminology, such as
   Make-before-break or Break-before-make see [RFC3753].

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

3.  Scenarios

   The MOBIKE protocol can be used in different scenarios.  Three of
   them are discussed below.

3.1  Mobility Scenario

   Figure 1 shows a break-before-make mobility scenario where a mobile
   node attaches to, for example a wireless LAN, to obtain connectivity
   to some security gateway.  This security gateway might connect the
   mobile node to a corporate network, to a UTMS network or to some
   other network.  The initial IKEv2 exchange takes place along the path
   labeled as 'old path' from the MN using its old IP address via the
   old access router (OAR) towards the security gateway (GW).  The IPsec
   tunnel mode terminates there but the decapsulated data packet will
   typically address another destination.  Since only MOBIKE is relevant
   for this discussion the end-to-end communication between the MN and
   some destination server is not shown in Figure 1.

   When the MN moves to a new network and obtains a new IP address from
   a new access router (NAR) it is the responsibility of MOBIKE to avoid
   restarting the IKEv2 exchange from scratch.  As a result, some form
   of protocol exchange, denoted as 'MOBIKE Address Update', will
   perform the necessary state update.  The protocol messages will
   travel along a new path whereby the old path and the new path will
   meet at the cross-over router.

   Note that in a break-before-make mobility scenario the MN obtains a
   new IP address after reachability to the old IP address has been
   lost.  MOBIKE is also assumed to work in scenarios where the mobile
   node is able to establish connectivity with the new IP address while
   still being reachable at the old IP address.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

                          (Initial IKEv2 Exchange)
       Old IP   +--+        +---+                    v
       address  |MN|------> |OAR| -------------V     v
                +--+        +---+ Old path     V     v
                 .                          +----+   v>>>>> +--+
                 .move                      | CR | -------> |GW|
                 .                          |    |    >>>>> |  |
                 v                          +----+   ^      +--+
                +--+        +---+ New path     ^     ^
       New IP   |MN|------> |NAR|--------------^     ^
       address  +--+        +---+                    ^
                          (MOBIKE Address Update)

              ---> = Path taken by data packets
              >>>> = Signaling traffic (IKEv2 and MOBIKE)
              ...> = End host movement

                      Figure 1: Mobility Scenario

3.2  Multihoming Scenario

   Another scenario where MOBIKE might be used is between two peers
   equipped with multiple interfaces (and multiple IP addresses).
   Figure 2 shows two such multi-homed peers.  Peer A has two interface
   cards with two IP addresses IP_A1 and IP_A2.  Additionally, Peer B
   also has two IP addresses, IP_B1 and IP_B2.  Each peer selects one of
   its IP addresses as the preferred address which will subsequently be
   used for communication.  Various reasons, such as problems with the
   interface card, might require a peer to switch from one IP address to
   the other one.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

     +------------+                                  +------------+
     | Peer A     |           *~~~~~~~~~*            | Peer B     |
     |            |>>>>>>>>>> * Network   *>>>>>>>>>>|            |
     |      IP_A1 +-------->+             +--------->+ IP_B1      |
     |            |         |             |          |            |
     |      IP_A2 +********>+             +*********>+ IP_B2      |
     |            |          *           *           |            |
     +------------+           *~~~~~~~~~*            +------------+

              ---> = Path taken by data packets
              >>>> = Signaling traffic (IKEv2 and MOBIKE)
              ***> = Potential future path through the network
                     (if Peer A and Peer B chance their preferred

                     Figure 2: Multihoming Scenario

   Note, that the load-balancing inside one IKE SA is not provided by
   the MOBIKE protocol.  Each client uses only one of the available IP
   addresses at a given point in time.

3.3  Multihomed Laptop Scenario

   In the multihomed laptop scenario we consider a laptop, which has
   multiple interface cards and therefore several ways to connect to a
   network.  It might for example have a fixed Ethernet, WLAN, GPRS,
   Bluetooth or USB hardware in order to sent IP packets.  Some of these
   interfaces might connected to a network over the time depending on a
   number of reasons (e.g., cost, availability of certain link layer
   technologies, user convenience).  For example, the user can
   disconnect himself from the fixed Ethernet, and then use the office
   WLAN, and then later leave the office and start using GPRS during the
   trip to home.  At home he might again use again WLAN.  At a certain
   point in time multiple interfaces might be connected.  As such, the
   laptop is a multihomed device.  In any case, the IP address of the
   individual interfaces are subject to change.

   The user desires to keep the established IKE-SA and IPsec SAs alive
   all time without the need to re-run the initial IKEv2 exchange which
   could require user interaction as part of the authentication process.
   Furthermore, even if IP addresses change due to interface switching
   or mobility, the IP source and destination address obtained via the
   configuration payloads within IKEv2 and used inside the IPsec tunnel
   remains unaffected, i.e., applications might not detect any change at

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

4.  Framework

   Initially, when a MOBIKE peer starts and executes the initial
   protocol exchange with its MOBIKE peer it needs to setup a peer
   address set based on the available addresses.  It might want to make
   this peer address set available to the other peer.  The Initiator
   does not need to explicitly indicate its preferred address since
   already using its preferred address.  The outgoing IKEv2 and MOBIKE
   messages use this preferred address as the source IP address and
   expects incoming signaling messages to be addressed to this address.

   Interaction with other protocols at the MOBIKE host is required to
   build the peer address set and the preferred address.  In some cases
   the peer address set is available before the initial protocol run and
   does not change during the lifetime of the IKE-SA.  The preferred
   address might change due to policy reasons.  In many other cases, as
   motivated in Section 3 the peer address set is modified (by adding or
   deleting addresses) and the preferred address needs to be changed as

   Modifying the peer address set or changing the preferred address is
   effected by the host's local policy and by the interaction with other
   protocols (such as DHCP or IPv6 Neighbor Discovery).

   Figure 3 shows an example protocol interaction at a MOBIKE peer.
   MOBIKE interacts with the IPsec engine using the PF_KEY interface to
   create entries in the Security Association and Security Policy
   Databases.  The IPsec engine might also interact with IKEv2 and
   MOBIKE.  Established state at the IPsec databases has an impact on
   the incoming and outgoing data traffic.  MOBIKE receives information
   from other protocols running in both kernel-mode and user-mode, as
   previously mentioned.  Information relevant for MOBIKE is stored in a
   database, referred as Trigger database which guides MOBIKE in its
   decisions regarding the available addresses, peer address set and the
   preferred address.  Policies might affect the selection process.

   Building and maintaining a peer address set and selecting or changing
   a preferred address based on locally available information is,
   however, insufficient.  This information needs to be available to the
   other peer and in order to address various failure cases it is
   necessary to test connectivity along a path.  A number of address
   pairs might be available for connectivity tests but most important is
   the source and the destination IP address of the preferred address
   pair since these addresses are selected for sending and receiving
   MOBIKE signaling messages and for sending and receiving IPsec
   protected data traffic.  If a problem along this primary path is
   detected (e.g., due to a router failure) it is necessary to switch to
   the new preferred address pair.  Testing other paths might also be

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   useful to notice when a disconnected path is operational again.

                           +-------------+       +---------+
                           |User-space   |       | MOBIKE  |
                           |Protocols    |  +-->>| Daemon  |
                           |relevant for |  |    |         |
                           |MOBIKE       |  |    +---------+
                           +-------------+  |         ^
   User Space                    ^          |         ^
   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ API ++++++ API ++++ PF_KEY ++++++++
   Kernel Space                  v          |         v
                               _______      |         v
       +-------------+        /       \     |    +--------------+
       |Routing      |       / Trigger \    |    | IPsec        |
       |Protocols    |<<-->>|  Database |<<-+  +>+ Engine       |
       |             |       \         /       | | (+Databases) |
       +-----+---+---+        \_______/        | +------+-------+
             ^   ^               ^             |        ^
             |   +---------------+-------------+--------+-----+
             |                   v             |        |     |
             |             +-------------+     |        |     |
      I      |             |Kernel-space |     |        |     |   I
      n      |   +-------->+Protocols    +<----+-----+  |     |   n
      t      v   v         |relevant for |     |     v  v     v   t
      e +----+---+-+       |MOBIKE       |     |   +-+--+-----+-+ e
      r |  Input   |       +-------------+     |   | Outgoing   | r
      f |  Packet  +<--------------------------+   | Interface  | f
    ==a>|Processing|===============================| Processing |=a>
      c |          |                               |            | c
      e +----------+                               +------------+ e
      s                                                           s

              ===> = IP packets arriving/leaving a MOBIKE node
              <->  = control and configuration operations

                          Figure 3: Framework

   Although the interaction with other protocols is important for MOBIKE
   to operate correctly the working group is chartered to leave this
   aspect outside the scope.  The working group will develop a MOBIKE
   protocol which needs to perform the following functionality:
   o  Ability to inform a peer about the peer address set
   o  Ability to inform a peer about the preferred address
   o  Ability to test connectivity along a path and thereby to detect an
      outage situation in order to fall back to another preferred
      address, if necessary, or to change the peer address set

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   o  Ability to deal with Network Address Translation devices

   In addition to the above-listed functionality security is important
   to the working group.  For example, the ability to prevent flooding
   attacks based on announcing someone else's address needs to be dealt

   Extensions of the PF_KEY interface required by MOBIKE are also within
   the scope of the working group.  Finally, optimizations in wireless
   environment will also be covered.

   Note that MOBIKE is somewhat different compared to, for example, SCTP
   mobility since both the IKE-SA and the IPsec SA is affected by the
   change of addresses.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

5.  Design Considerations

   This section discusses aspects affecting the design of the MOBIKE

5.1  Indicating Support for MOBIKE

   A node needs to be able to guarantee that its address change messages
   are understood by its corresponding peer.  Otherwise an address
   change may render the connection useless, and it is important that
   both sides realize this as early as possible.

   Ensuring that the messages are understood can in be arranged either
   by marking some IKEv2 payloads critical so that they are either
   processed or an error message is returned, by using Vendor ID
   payloads or via a Notify.

   The first solution approach is to use Vendor ID payloads during the
   initial IKEv2 exchange using a specific string denoting MOBIKE to
   signal the support of the MOBIKE protocol.  This ensures that in all
   cases a MOBIKE capable node knows whether its peer supports MOBIKE or

   The second solution approach uses the Notify payload which is also
   used for NAT detection (via NAT_DETECTION_SOURCE_IP and

   Both, a Vendor ID and a Notify payload, might be used to indicate the
   support of certain extensions.

   Note that the node could also attempt MOBIKE optimistically with the
   critical bit set to one when a movement has occurred.  The drawback
   of this approach is, however, that the an unnecessary MOBIKE message
   round is introduced on the first movement.

   Although Vendor ID payloads and Notifications are technically
   equivalent Notifications are already used in IKEv2 as a capability
   negotiation mechanism and is therefore the preferred mechanism.

5.2  Changing a Preferred Address and Multihoming Support

   From MOBIKE's point of view multihoming support is integrated by
   supporting a peer address set rather than a single address and
   protocol mechanisms to change to use a new preferred IP address.
   From a protocol point of view each peer needs to learn the preferred
   address and the peer address set somehow, implicitly or explicitly.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

5.2.1  Storing a single or multiple addresses

   One design decision is whether an IKE-SA should store a single IP
   address or multiple IP addresses as part of the peer address set.
   One option is that the other end can provide a list of addresses
   which can be used as destination addresses.  MOBIKE does not include
   load balancing, i.e., only one IP address is set to a preferred
   address at a time and changing the preferred address typically
   requires some MOBIKE signaling.

   Another option is to only communicate one address towards the other
   peer and both peers only use that address when communicating.  If
   this preferred address cannot be used anymore then an address update
   is sent to the other peer changing the primary address.

   If peer A provides a peer address set with multiple IP addresses then
   peer B can recover from a failure of the preferred address on its
   own, meaning that when it detects that the primary path does not work
   anymore it can either switch to a new preferred address locally
   (i.e., causing the source IP address of outgoing MOBIKE messages to
   have a non-preferred address) or to try an IP address from A's peer
   address set.  If peer B only received a single IP address as the A's
   peer address set then peer B can only change its own preferred
   address.  The other end has to wait for an address update from peer A
   with a new IP address in order to fix the problem.  The main
   advantage about using a single IP address for the remote host is that
   it makes retransmission easy, and it also simplifies the recover
   procedure.  The peer, whose IP address changed, must start recovery
   process and send the new IP address to the other peer.  Failures
   along the path are not well covered with advertising a single IP

   The single IP address approach will not work if both peers happen to
   loose their IP address at the same time (due to, say, the failure of
   one of the links that both nodes are connected to).  It may also
   require the IKEv2 window size to be larger than 1, especially if only
   direct indications are used.  This is because the host needs to be
   able to send the IP address change notifications before it can switch
   to another address, and depending on the return routability checks,
   retransmissions policies etc, it might be hard to make the protocol
   such that it works with window size of 1 too.  Furthermore, the
   single IP address approach does not really benefit much from indirect
   indications as the peer receiving these indications might not be able
   to fix the situation by itself (e.g., even if a peer receives an ICMP
   host unreachable message for the old IP address, it cannot try other
   IP addresses, since they are unknown).

   The problems with IP address list are mostly in its complexity.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   Notification and recovery processes are more complex, as both end can
   recover from the IP address changes.  There is also possibilities
   that both ends tries to recover at the same time and this must be
   taken care in the protocol.

   Please note that the discussed aspect is partially different from the
   question how many addresses to sent in a single MOBIKE message.  A
   MOBIKE message might be able to carry more than one IP address (with
   the IP address list approach) or a single address only.  The latter
   approach has the advantage of dealing with NAT traversal in a proper
   fashion.  A NAT cannot change addresses carried inside the MOBIKE
   message but it can change IP address (and transport layer addresses)
   in the IP header and Transport Protocol header (if NAT traversal is
   enabled).  Furthermore, a MOBIKE message carrying the peer address
   set could be idempotent (i.e., always resending the full address
   list) or does the protocol allow add/delete operations to be
   specified.  [I-D.dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt], for example, offers an
   approach which defines add/delete operations.  The same is true for
   the dynamic address reconfiguration extension for SCTP

5.2.2  Indirect or Direct Indication

   An indication to change the preferred IP address might be either
   direct or indirect.

   Direct indication:

      A direct indication means that the other peer will send an message
      with the address change.  Such a message can, for example,
      accomplished by having MOBIKE sending an authenticated address
      update notification with a different preferred address.

   Indirect indication:

      An indirect indication to change the preferred address can be
      obtained by observing the environment.  An indirect indication
      might, for example, be be the receipt of an ICMP message or
      information of a link failure.  This information should be seen as
      a hint and might not directly cause any changes to the preferred
      address.  Depending on the local policy MOBIKE might decide to
      perform a dead-peer detection exchange for the preferred address
      pair (or another address pair from the peer address set).  When a
      peer detects that the other end started to use different source IP
      address than before, it might want to authorize the new preferred
      address (if not already authorized).  A peer might also start a
      connectivity test of this particular address.If a bidirectionally
      operational address pair is selected then MOBIKE needs to

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

      communicate this new preferred address to its remote peer.

   MOBIKE will utilize both mechanisms, direct and indirect indications,
   to make a more intelligent decision which address pair to select as
   the preferred address.  The more information will be available to
   MOBIKE the faster a new operational preferred address pair can be
   selected among the available candiates.

5.2.3  Connectivity Tests using IKEv2 Dead-Peer Detection

   This section discusses the suitability of the IKEv2 dead-peer
   detection (DPD) mechanism for connectivity tests between address
   pairs.  The basic IKEv2 DPD mechanism is not modified by MOBIKE but
   it needs to be investigated whether it can be used for MOBIKE
   purposes as well.

   The IKEv2 DPD mechanism is done by sending an empty informational
   exchange packet to the other peer, in which case the other end will
   respond with an acknowledgement.  If no acknowledgement is received
   after certain timeout (and after couple of retransmissions), the
   other peer is considered to be not reachable.  Note that the receipt
   of IPsec protected data traffic is also a guarantee that the other
   peer is alive.

   When reusing dead-peer detection in MOBIKE for connectivity tests it
   seems to be reasonable to try other IP addresses (if they are
   available) in case of unsuccessful connectivity test for a given
   address pair.  Dead-peer detection messages using a different address
   pair should use the same message-id as the original dead-peer
   detection message (i.e.  they are simply retransmissions of the
   dead-peer detection packet using different destination IP address).
   If different message-id is used then it violates constraints placed
   by the IKEv2 specification on the DPD message with regard to the
   mandatory ACK for each message-id, causing the IKEv2 SA to be

   If MOBIKE strictly follows the guidelines of the dead-peer detection
   mechanism in IKEv2 then an IKE-SA should be marked as dead and
   deleted if the connectivity test for all address pairs fails.  Note
   that this is not in-line with the approach used, for example, in SCTP
   where a failed connectivity test for an address does not lead to (a)
   the IP address or IP address pair to be marked as dead and (b) delete
   state.  Connectivity tests will be continued for the address pairs in
   hope that the problem will recover soon.

   Note, that as IKEv2 implementations might have window size of 1,
   which prevents to initiate a dead-peer detection exchange while doing
   another exchange.  As a result all other exchanges experience the

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   identical retransmission policy as used for the dead-peer detection.

   The dead-peer detection for the other IP address pairs can also be
   executed simultaneously (with a window size larger than 1), meaning
   that after the initial timeout of the preferred address expires, we
   send packets simultaneously to all other address pairs.  It is
   necessary to differentiate individual acknowledgement messages in
   order to determine which address pair is operational.  Therefore the
   source IP address of the acknowledgement should match the destination
   IP towards the message was previously sent.

   Also the other peer is most likely going to reply only to the first
   packet it receives, and that first packet might not be the best (by
   whatever criteria) address pair.  The reason the other peer is only
   responding to the first packet it receives, is that implementations
   should not send retransmissions if they have just sent out identical
   response message.  This is to protect the packet multiplication
   problem, which can happen if some node in the network queues up
   packets and then send them to the destination.  If destination will
   reply to all of them then the other end will again see multiple
   packets, and will reply to all of them etc.

   The protocol should also be nice to the network, meaning, that when
   some core router link goes down, and a large number of MOBIKE clients
   notice it, they should not start sending a large number of messages
   while trying to recover from the problem.  This might be especially
   bad if this happens because packets are dropped because of the
   congested network.  If MOBIKE clients simultaneously try to test all
   possible address pairs by executing connectivity tests then the
   congestion problem only gets worse.

   Also note, that the IKEv2 dead-peer detection is not sufficient for
   the return routability check.  See Section 5.6 for more information.

5.3  Simultaneous Movements

   MOBIKE does not aim to provide a full mobility solution which allows
   simultaneous movements.  Instead, the MOBIKE working group focuses on
   selected scenarios as described in Section 3.  Some of the scenarios
   assume that one peer has a fixed set of addresses (from which some
   subset might be in use).  Thus it cannot move to the address unknown
   to the other peer.  Situations where both peers move and the movement
   notifications cannot reach the other peer, is outside the scope of
   the MOBIKE WG.  MOBIKE has not being chartered to deal with the
   rendezvous problem, or with the introduction of any new entities in
   the network.

   Note, that if only a single address is stored in the peer address set

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   (instead of an address list) we might end up in the case where it
   seems that both peers changed their addresses at the same time.  This
   is something that the protocol must deal with.

   Three cases can be differentiated:

   o  Two mobile nodes obtain a new address at the same time, and then
      being unable to tell each other where they are (in a
      break-before-make scenario).  This problem is called the
      rendezvous problem, and is traditionally solved by introducing
      another third entity, for example, the home agents (in Mobile
      IPv4/IPv6) or forwarding agents (in Host Identity Protocol).
      Essentially, solving this problem requires the existence of a
      stable infrastructure node somewhere.

   o  Simultaneous changes to addresses such that at least one of the
      new addresses is known to the other peer before the change

   o  No simultaneous changes at all.

5.4  NAT Traversal

   IKEv2 has support of legacy NAT traversal built-in.  This feature is
   known as NAT-T which allows IKEv2 to work even if a NAT along the
   path between the Initiator and the Responder modified the source and
   possibly the destination IP address.  With NAPT even the transport
   protocol identifiers are modified (which then requires UDP
   encapsulation for subsequent IPsec protected data traffic).
   Therefore, the required IP address information is taken from the IP
   header (if a NAT was detected who rewrote IP header information)
   rather than from the protected payload.  This problem is not new and
   was discovered during the design of mobility protocol where the only
   valuable information is IP address information.

   One of the goals in the MOBIKE protocol is to securely exchange one
   or more addresses of the peer address set and to securely set the
   primary address.  If not other protocol is used to securely retrieve
   the IP address and port information allocated by the NAT then it is
   not possible to tackle all attacks against MOBIKE.  Various solution
   approaches have been presented:

   o  Securely retrieving IP address and port information allocated by
      the NAT using a protocol different from MOBIKE.  This approach is
      outside the scope of the MOBIKE working group since other working
      groups, such as MIDCOM and NSIS, already deal with this problem.
      The MOBIKE protocol can benefit from the interaction with these

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 17]

   o  Design a protocol in such a way that NAT boxes are able to inspect
      (or even participate) in the protocol exchange.  This approach was
      taken with HIP but is not an option for IKEv2 and MOBIKE.

   o  Disable NAT-T support by indicating the desire never to use
      information from the (unauthenticated) header.  While this
      approach prevents some problems it effectively disallows the
      protocol to work in certain environments.

   There is no way to distinguish the cases where there is NAT along the
   path which modifies the header information in packets or whether an
   adversary mounts an attack.  If NAT is detected in the IKE SA
   creation, that should automatically disable the MOBIKE extensions and
   use NAT-T.

   A design question is whether NAT detection capabilities should be
   enabled only during the initial exchange or even at subsequent
   message exchanges.  If MOBIKE is executed with no NAT along the path
   when the IKE SA was created, then a NAT which appears after moving to
   a new network might cannot be dealt with if NAT detection is enabled
   only during the initial exchange.  Hence, it might be desirable to
   also support scenario where a MOBIKE peer moves from a network which
   does not deploy a NAT to a network which uses a private address

   A NAT prevention mechanism can be used to make sure that no adversary
   can interact with the protocol if no NAT is expected between the
   Initiator and the Responder.

   The support for NAT traversal is certainly one of the most important
   design decisions with an impact on other protocol aspects.

5.5  Changing addresses or changing the paths

   A design decision is whether it is enough for the MOBIKE protocol to
   detect dead address, or does it need to detect also dead paths.  Dead
   address detection means that we only detect that we cannot get
   packets through to that remote address by using the local IP address
   given by the local IP-stack (i.e., local address selected normally by
   the routing information).  Dead path detection means that we need to
   try all possible local interfaces/IP addresses for each remote
   addresses, i.e., find all possible paths between the hosts and try
   them all to see which of them work (or at least find one working

   While performing just an address change is simpler, the existence of
   locally operational addresses are not, however, a guarantee that
   communications can be established with the peer.  A failure in the
   routing infrastructure can prevent the sent packets from reaching
   their destination.  Or a failure of an interface on one side can be

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   related to the failure of an interface on the other side, making it
   necessary to change more than one address at a time.

5.6  Return Routability Tests

   Setting a new preferred address which is subsequently used for
   communication is associated with an authorization decision: Is a peer
   allowed to use this address? Does this peer own this address? Two
   mechanisms have been proposed in the past to allow a peer to compute
   the answer to this question:

   o  The addresses a peer is using is part of a certificate.  [RFC3554]
      introduced this approach.  If the other peer is, for example, a
      security gateway with a limited set of fixed IP addresses, then
      the security gateway may have a certificate with all the IP
      addresses in the certificate.

   o  A return routability check is performed before the address is used
      to ensure that the peer is reachable at the indicated address.

   Without performing an authorization decision a malicious peer can
   redirect traffic towards a third party or a blackhole.

   An IP address should not be used as a primary address without
   computing the authorization decision.  If the addresses are part of
   the certificate then it is not necessary execute the weaker return
   routability test.  If multiple addresses are communicated to another
   peer as part of the peer address set then some of these addresses
   might be already verified even if the primary address is still

   Another option is to use the [I-D.dupont-mipv6-3bombing] approach
   which suggests to do a return routability test only if you have to
   send an address update from some other address than the indicated
   preferred address.

   Finally it would be possible not to execute return routability checks
   at all.  In case of indirect change notifications then we only move
   to the new preferred address after successful dead-peer detection on
   the new address, which is already a return routability check.  With a
   direct notifications the authenticated peer may have provided an
   authenticated IP address, thus we could simply trust the other end.
   There is no way external attacker can cause any attacks, but we are
   not protected by the internal attacker, i.e.  the authenticated peer
   forwarding its traffic to the new address.  On the other hand we do
   know the identity of the peer in that case.

   As such, it sees that there it is also a policy issue when to

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   schedule a return routability test.

   The basic format of the return routability check could be similar
   than dead-peer detection, but the problem is that if that fails then
   the IKEv2 specification requires the IKE SA to be deleted.  Because
   of this we might need to do some kind of other exchange.

   There are potential attacks if a return routability checks include
   some kind of nonce.  In this attack the valid end points sends
   address update notification for the third party, trying to get all
   the traffic to be sent there, causing denial of service attack.  If
   the return routability checks does not contain any cookies or other
   random information not known by the other end, then that valid node
   could reply to the return routability checks even when it cannot see
   the request.  This might cause the other end to turn the traffic to
   there, even when the true original recipient cannot be reached at
   this address.

   The IKEv2 NAT-T mechanism does not perform any return routability
   checks.  It simply uses the last seen source IP address used by the
   other peer where to send response packets.  An adversary can change
   those IP addresses, and can cause the response packets to be sent to
   wrong IP address.  The situation is self-fixing when the adversary is
   no longer able to modify packets and the first packet with true IP
   address reaches the other peer.  In a certain sense mobility handling
   makes this attack difficult for an adversary since it needs to be
   located somewhere along the path where the individual paths ({CoA1,
   ..., CoAn} towards the destination IP address) have a shared path or
   if the adversary is located near the MOBIKE client then it needs to
   follow the users mobility patterns.  With IKEv2 NAT-T the genuine
   client can cause third party bombing by redirecting all the traffic
   pointed to him to third party.  As the MOBIKE protocol tries to
   provide equal or better security than IKEv2 NAT-T the MOBIKE protocol
   should protect against these attacks.

   There might be also return routability information available from the
   other parts of the system too (as shown in Figure 3), but the checks
   done might have a different quality.  There are multiple levels for
   return routability checks:

   o  None, no tests

   o  A party willing to answer is on the path to the claimed address.
      This is the basic form of return routability test.

   o  There is an answer from the tested address, and that answer was
      authenticated (including the address) to be from our peer.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   o  There was an authenticated answer from the peer, but it is not
      guaranteed to be from the tested address or path to it (because
      the peer can construct a response without seeing the request).

   The basic return routability checks do not protect against 3rd party
   bombing, if the attacker is along the path, as the attacker can
   forward the return routability checks to the real peer (even if those
   packets are cryptographically authenticated).

   If the address to be tested is inside the MOBIKE packet too, then the
   adversary cannot forward packets, thus it prevents 3rd party

   If the reply packet can be constructed without seeing the request
   packet (for example, if there is no nonce, challenge or similar
   mechanism to show liveness), then the genuine peer can cause 3rd
   party bombing, by replying to those requests without seeing them at

   Other levels might only provide information that there is someone at
   the IP address which replied to the request.  There might not be an
   indication that the reply was freshly generated or repeated, or the
   request might have been transmitted from a different source address.

   Requirements for a MOBIKE protocol for the return routability test
   might be able to verify that there is same (cryptographically)
   authenticated node at the other peer and it can now receive packets
   from the IP address it claims to have.

5.7  Employing MOBIKE results in other protocols

   If MOBIKE has learned about new locations or verified the validity of
   an address through a return routability test, can this information be
   useful for other protocols?

   When considering the basic MOBIKE VPN scenario, the answer is no.
   Transport and application layer protocols running inside the VPN
   tunnel have no consideration about the outer addresses or their

   Similarly, IP layer tunnel termination at a gateway rather than a
   host endpoint limits the benefits for "other protocols" that could be
   informed -- all application protocols at the other side are running
   in a node that is unaware of IPsec, IKE, or MOBIKE.

   However, it is conceivable that future uses or extensions of the
   MOBIKE protocol make such information distribution useful.  For
   instance, if transport mode MOBIKE and SCTP were made to work

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   together, it would likely be useful for SCTP to learn about the new
   addresses at the same time as MOBIKE learns them.  Similarly, various
   IP layer mechanisms might make use of the fact that a return
   routability test of a specific type has already been performed.
   However, in all of these cases careful consideration should be
   applied.  This consideration should answer to questions such as
   whether other alternative sources exist for the information, whether
   dependencies are created between parts that prior to this had no
   dependencies, and what the impacts in terms of number of messages or
   latency are.

   [I-D.crocker-celp] discussed the use of common locator information
   pools in IPv6 multihoming context; it assumed that both transport and
   IP layer solutions would be used for providing multihoming, and that
   it would be beneficial for different protocols to coordinate their
   results in some manner, for instance by sharing experienced
   throughput information for address pairs.  This may apply to MOBIKE
   as well, assuming it co-exists with non-IPsec protocols that are
   faced with the same multiaddressing choices.

   Nevertheless, all of this is outside the scope of current MOBIKE base
   protocol design and may be addressed in future work.

5.8  Scope of SA changes

   Most sections of this document discuss design considers for updating
   and maintaining addresses for the IKE-SA.  However, changing the
   preferred address also has an impact for IPsec SAs.  The outer tunnel
   header addresses (source IP and destination IP addresses) need to be
   modified according to the preferred address pair to allow the IPsec
   protected data traffic to travel along the same path as the MOBIKE
   packets (if we only consider the IP header information).

   The basic question is that how the IPsec SAs are changed to use the
   new address pair (the same address pair as the MOBIKE signaling
   traffic -- the preferred address pair).  One option is that when the
   IKE SA address is changed then automatically all IPsec SAs associated
   with it are moved along with it to new address pair.  Another option
   is to have separate exchange to move the IPsec SAs separately.

   If IPsec SAs should be updated separately then a more efficient
   format than notification payload is needed.  A notification payload
   can only store one SPI per payload.  A separate payload which would
   have list of IPsec SA SPIs and new preferred address.  If there are
   large number of IPsec SAs, those payloads can be quite large unless
   ranges of SPI values are supported.  If we automatically move all
   IPsec SAs when the IKE SA moves, then we only need to keep track
   which IKE SA was used to create the IPsec SA, and fetch the IP

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   addresses.  Note that IKEv2 [I-D.ietf-ipsec-ikev2] already requires
   implementations to keep track which IPsec SAs are created using which
   IKE SA.

   If we do allow each IPsec SAs address sets to be updated separately,
   then we can support scenarios, where the machine has fast and/or
   cheap connections and slow and/or expensive connections, and it wants
   to allow moving some of the SAs to the slower and/or more expensive
   connection, and prevents to move the news video stream from the WLAN
   to the GPRS link.

   On the other hand, even if we tie the IKE SA update to the IPsec SA
   update, then we can create separate IKE SAs for this scenario, e.g.,
   we create one IKE SA which have both links as endpoints, and it is
   used for important traffic, and then we create another IKE SA which
   have only the fast and/or cheap connection, which is then used for
   that kind of bulk traffic.

5.9  Zero Address Set

   One of the features which might be useful would be for the peer to
   announce the other end that it will now disconnect for some time,
   i.e., it will not be reachable at all.  For instance, a laptop might
   go to suspend mode.  In this case the peer could send address
   notification with zero new addresses, which means that it will not
   have any valid addresses anymore.  The responder of that kind of
   notification would then acknowledge that, and could then temporarily
   disable all SAs.  If any of the SAs gets any packets they are simply
   dropped.  This could also include some kind of ACK spoofing to keep
   the TCP/IP sessions alive (or simply set the TCP/IP keepalives and
   timeouts large enough not to cause problems), or it could simply be
   left to the applications, e.g., allow TCP/IP sessions to notice the
   link is broken.

   The local policy could then decide how long the peer would allow
   other peers to be disconnected, e.g., whether this is only allowed
   for few minutes, or do they allow users to disconnect Friday evening
   and reconnect Monday morning (consuming resources during weekend too,
   but on the other hand not more than is normally used during week
   days, but we do not need lots of extra resources on the Monday
   morning to support all those people connecting back to network).

   From a technical point of view this features addresses two aspects:

   o  There is no need to transmit IPsec data traffic.  IPsec protected
      data needs to be dropped which saves bandwidth.  This does not
      provide a functional benefit i.e, nothing breaks if this feature
      is not provided.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 23]

   o  MOBIKE signaling messages are also ignored and need to be
      suspended.  The IKE-SA must not be deleted and the suspend
      functionality (realized with the zero address set) might require
      the IKE-SA to be tagged with a lifetime value since the IKE-SA
      will not be kept in memory an arbitrary amount of time.  Note that
      the IKE-SA has no lifetime associated with it.  In order to
      prevent the IKE-SA to be deleted the dead-peer detection mechanism
      needs to be suspended as well.

   Due to the enhanced complexity of this extension a first version of
   the MOBIKE protocol will not provide this feature.

5.10  IPsec Tunnel or Transport Mode

   Current MOBIKE design is focused only on the VPN type usage and
   tunnel mode.  Transport mode behaviour would also be useful, but will
   be discussed in future documents.

5.11  Message Representation

   The basic IP address change notifications can be sent either via an
   informational exchange already specified in the IKEv2, or via a
   MOBIKE specific message exchange.  Using informational exchange has
   the main advantage that it is already specified in the IKEv2 and
   implementations incorporated the functionality already.

   Another question is the basic format of the address update
   notifications.  The address update notifications can include multiple
   addresses, which some can be IPv4 and some IPv6 addresses.  The
   number of addresses is most likely going to be quite small (less than
   10).  The format might need to indicate a preference value for each
   address Furthermore, one of the addresses in the peer address set
   must be labeled as the preferred address.  The format could either
   contain the preference number, giving out the relative order of the
   addresses, or it could simply be ordered list of IP addresses in the
   order of the most preferred first.  While two addresses can have the
   same preference value an ordered list avoids this problem.

   Even if load balancing is currently outside the scope of MOBIKE,
   there might be future work to include this feature.  The format
   selected needs to be flexible enough to include additional
   information (e.g., to enable load balancing).  This might be
   something like one reserved field, which can later be used to store
   additional information.  As there is other potential information
   which might have to be tied to the address in the future, a reserved
   field seems like a prudent design in any case.

   There are two basic formats for putting IP address list in to the
   exchange, we can include each IP address as separate payload (where
   the payload order indicates the preference value, or the payload

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   itself might include the preference value), or we can put the IP
   address list as one payload to the exchange, and that one payload
   will then have internal format which includes the list of IP

   Having multiple payloads each having one IP address makes the
   protocol probably easier to parse, as we can already use the normal
   IKEv2 payload parsing procedures to get the list out.  It also offers
   easy way for the extensions, as the payload probably contains only
   the type of the IP address (or the type is encoded to the payload
   type), and the IP address itself, and as each payload already has
   length associated to it, we can detect if there is any extra data
   after the IP address.  Some implementations might have problems
   parsing too long list of IKEv2 payloads, but if the sender sends them
   in the most preferred first, the other end can simply only take n
   first addresses and use them.

   Having all IP addresses in one big MOBIKE specified internal format
   provides more compact encoding, and keeps the MOBIKE implementation
   more concentrated to one module.

   The next choice is which type of payloads to use.  IKEv2 already
   specifies a notify payload.  It includes some extra fields (SPI size,
   SPI, protocol etc), which gives 4 bytes of the extra overhead, and
   there is the notify data field, which could include the MOBIKE
   specific data.

   Another option would be to have a custom payload type, which then
   includes the information needed for the MOBIKE protocol.

   MOBIKE might send the full peer address list once one of the IP
   addresses changes (either addresses are added, removed, the order
   changes or the preferred address is updated) or an incremental
   update.  Sending incremental updates provides more compact packets
   (meaning we can support more IP addresses), but on the other hand
   have more problems in the synchronization and packet reordering
   cases, i.e., the incremental updates must be processed in order, but
   for full updates we can simply use the most recent one, and ignore
   old ones, even if they arrive after the most recent one (IKEv2
   packets have message id which is incremented for each packet, thus we
   know the sending order easily).

   Note that each peer needs to communicate its peer address set to the
   other peer.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

6.  Security Considerations

   As all the messages are already authenticated by the IKEv2 there is
   no problem that any attackers would modify the actual contents of the
   packets.  The IP addresses in IP header of the packets are not
   authenticated, thus the protocol defined must take care that they are
   only used as an indication that something might be different, they
   should not cause any direct actions.

   Attacker can also spoof ICMP error messages in an effort to confuse
   the peers about which addresses are not working.  At worst this
   causes denial of service and/or the use of non-preferred addresses,
   so it is not that serious.

   One type of attacks which needs to be taken care of the MOBIKE
   protocol is also various flooding attacks.  See
   [I-D.ietf-mip6-ro-sec] and [Aur02] for more information about
   flooding attacks.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not introduce any IANA considerations.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

8.  Acknowledgments

   This document is the result of discussions in the MOBIKE working
   group.  The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Pasi Eronen,
   Francis Dupont, Mohan Parthasarathy, Paul Hoffman, Bill Sommerfeld,
   James Kempf, Vijay Devarapalli, Atul Sharma, Bora Akyol and Joe Touch
   for their discussion input.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

9.  References

9.1  Normative references

              Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17 (work in progress), October

              Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-05 (work
              in progress), December 2004.

9.2  Informative References

              Arkko, J., "Failure Detection and Locator Selection in
              Multi6", draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00 (work
              in progress), October 2004.

   [RFC2409]  Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
              (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998.

   [RFC2401]  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.

              Dupont, F., "A note about 3rd party bombing in Mobile
              IPv6", draft-dupont-mipv6-3bombing-00 (work in progress),
              February 2004.

              Nikander, P., "Mobile IP version 6 Route Optimization
              Security Design Background", draft-ietf-mip6-ro-sec-02
              (work in progress), October 2004.

              Nikander, P., "End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing with
              Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-mm-00 (work in
              progress), October 2004.

              Crocker, D., "Framework for Common Endpoint Locator
              Pools", draft-crocker-celp-00 (work in progress), February

   [RFC3489]  Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C. and R. Mahy,

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

              "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
              Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489,
              March 2003.

   [RFC2960]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
              Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
              Zhang, L. and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

              Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Dynamic Address  Reconfiguration",
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-09 (work in progress), June

              Dupont, F., "Address Management for IKE version 2",
              draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-06 (work in progress), October

   [RFC3554]  Bellovin, S., Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A. and R. Stewart,
              "On the Use of Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              with IPsec", RFC 3554, July 2003.

   [Aur02]    Aura, T., Roe, M. and J. Arkko, "Security of Internet
              Location Management", In Proc. 18th Annual Computer
              Security Applications Conference, pages 78-87, Las Vegas,
              NV USA, December 2002.

Authors' Addresses

   Tero Kivinen
   Safenet, Inc.
   Fredrikinkatu 47
   HELSINKI  FIN-00100

   EMail: kivinen@safenet-inc.com

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   Munich, Bavaria  81739

   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.com

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft       Design of the MOBIKE Protocol         December 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Kivinen & Tschofenig      Expires July 1, 2005                 [Page 32]