Why the Authentication Data Suboption is Needed for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
RFC 5419
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (January 2009) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Basavaraj Patil , Gopal Dommety | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5419 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | mext-chairs@ietf.org |
RFC 5419
Network Working Group B. Patil
Request for Comments: 5419 Nokia
Category: Informational G. Dommety
Cisco
January 2009
Why the Authentication Data Suboption is Needed for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
Mobile IPv6 defines a set of signaling messages that enable the
mobile node (MN) to authenticate and perform registration with its
home agent (HA). These authentication signaling messages between the
mobile node and home agent are secured by an IPsec security
association (SA) that is established between the MN and HA. The MIP6
working group has specified a mechanism to secure the Binding Update
(BU) and Binding Acknowledgement (BAck) messages using an
authentication option, similar to the authentication option in Mobile
IPv4, carried within the signaling messages that are exchanged
between the MN and HA to establish a binding. This document provides
the justifications as to why the authentication option mechanism is
needed for Mobile IPv6 deployment in certain environments.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................3
3. Background ......................................................3
4. Applicability Statement .........................................3
5. Justification for the Use of the Authentication Option ..........5
5.1. Motivation for Use of the Authentication Option in
CDMA2000 ...................................................5
5.2. Additional Arguments for the Use of the
Authentication Option ......................................6
6. Application of Mobile IPv6 in CDMA Networks .....................9
6.1. IPv4-Based Mobility Architecture in CDMA2000 Networks ......9
6.2. IPv6-Based Mobility Architecture in CDMA2000 Networks .....11
6.2.1. Overview of the Mobility Operation in
IPv6-Based CDMA2000 Networks .......................11
6.2.2. Authentication and Security Details ................12
7. Limitations of the Authentication Protocol Option ..............14
8. Security Considerations ........................................16
9. Conclusion .....................................................16
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................17
11. References ....................................................17
11.1. Normative References .....................................17
11.2. Informative References ...................................18
1. Introduction
Mobile IPv6 relies on the IPsec Security Association between the
Mobile Node (MN) and the Home Agent (HA) for authentication of the MN
to its HA before a binding cache can be created at the HA. An
alternate mechanism that does not rely on the existence of the IPsec
SA between the MN and HA for authenticating the MN is needed in
certain deployment environments. Such an alternate mechanism is
outlined in [RFC4285]. This document is intended to capture for
archival purposes the reasoning behind the need for the
authentication protocol [RFC4285]. It should be noted that the
alternate solution does not imply that the IPsec-based solution will
be deprecated. It simply means that in certain deployment scenarios
there is a need for supporting MIPv6 without an IPsec SA between the
MN and HA. So the alternate solution is in addition to the IPsec-
based mechanism specified in the base RFCs, i.e., [RFC3775],
[RFC3776], and [RFC4877]. It has been noted that some of the
challenges of deploying MIPv6 in certain types of networks arose from
dependence on the Internet Key Exchange (IKE), which did not
integrate well with an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
(AAA) backend infrastructure. IKEv2 solves this problem. However,
at the time of discussion on the need for the authentication
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
protocol, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec
Architecture" [RFC4877] was still a work in progress and, as a
result, an alternative solution was needed.
It should be noted that some of the arguments for justifying the
specification of the authentication protocol have been made redundant
as a result of the specification of Mobile IPv6 operation with IKEv2
[RFC4877]. However, some of the arguments discussed in this document
are still applicable and justify usage of the authentication protocol
in certain deployment environments.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Background
Mobile IPv6 signaling involves several messages. These include:
o The Binding Update/Binding Acknowledgment between the mobile node
and the home agent.
o The route optimization signaling messages, which include the
HoTI-HoT (Home Test Init/Home Test), CoTI-CoT (Care-of Test Init/
Care-of Test), and BU-BAck messages between the MN and CN. HoTI
and HoT signaling messages are routed through the MN's HA.
o Mobile prefix solicitation and advertisements between the MN and
HA.
o Home agent discovery by MNs.
The signaling messages between the MN and HA are secured using the
IPsec SA that is established between these entities. The exception
to this are the messages involved in the home agent discovery
process. [RFC4877] specifies the establishment of the IPsec SA using
IKEv2.
4. Applicability Statement
The authentication option specified in "Authentication Protocol for
MIPv6" [RFC4285] provides a solution for MIPv6 deployment in
environments in which an operator may not require IPsec-based
security for the signaling. The reasons for an operator choosing to
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
deploy MIPv6 without mandating IPsec-based security for signaling
messages between the MN and HA could be many. Some of these are, for
example:
1. Operators deploying MIPv6 in cellular networks may consider IPsec
and IKEv2 as adding overhead to the limited bandwidth over the
air interface. The overhead here is in terms of the bytes that
IPsec and IKEv2 introduce to the signaling.
2. Operators may consider the number of messages between the MN and
HA that are required to establish the IPsec SA as too many. The
number of transactions chew into the capacity of limited
bandwidth air interfaces when MIPv6 is used in such environments.
It also adds additional latency to the establishment of the
binding.
3. In many deployments, authentication credentials already exist in
a AAA server. These credentials are used for authenticating a
user and authorizing network access. The same credentials and
security parameters cannot be reused for MIPv6 security as well,
if IKEv1 is used.
4. Dynamic assignment of home agents is needed in certain
deployments to minimize the latency of the backhaul. This is
done by allocating an HA in a visited network, for example.
Requiring IPsec SAs with home agents that are dynamically
assigned is an overhead, especially when the HA is in a visited
network.
5. In certain deployments, signaling messages between the MN and HA
may be over secure link layers. The lower layers provide
ciphering and security for the messages, and hence the need for
IPsec to do the same for MIPv6 messages does not exist.
One example of networks that have such characteristics are Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) networks as defined in the 3GPP2
[3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D] specification. Mobile WiMAX (Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access), which is based on IEEE
802.16e, also specifies in the network architecture the use of MIPv6,
with the default security for signaling being the authentication
protocol [RFC4285]. The WiMAX network architecture specifications
are available at [WiMAX-NWG].
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
5. Justification for the Use of the Authentication Option
The following two sections provide the reasoning for why the
authentication option-based registration process for Mobile IPv6 is
needed. Section 5.1 provides key arguments for the use of the
authentication option. Section 5.2 provides further explanation and
additional motivations for the authentication option.
5.1. Motivation for Use of the Authentication Option in CDMA2000
Wireless Networks
CDMA2000 networks deployed and operational today use Mobile IPv4 for
IP mobility. Operators have gained a significant amount of
operational experience in the process of deploying and operating
these networks. 3GPP2 has specified Mobile IPv6 operation in the
[3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D] specification. The following are the
deployment constraints that existing CDMA networks have to deal with
when deploying mobility service based on IPv6:
o Operators intend to leverage the Mobile IPv4 deployment and
operational experience by ensuring that Mobile IPv6 has a similar
deployment and operating model.
o Operators will have two parallel networks: one that offers IPv4
mobility with MIPv4 and another providing IPv6 mobility using
MIPv6.
o The same backend subscriber profile database, security keys, etc.
are intended to be used for both Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6
service. However, from a security standpoint, the reuse of the
same keys with multiple algorithms/protocols is a bad idea.
o The same user-configuration information, i.e., the identity and
keys associated with a user, will be used for IP mobility service
in IPv4 and/or IPv6 networks. The only security association that
is preconfigured is a shared secret between the mobile node and
the home AAA server. This is in contrast with an earlier version
of the Mobile IPv6 model, which required an IPsec SA between the
MN and HA. At the time of this writing, the IKEv2-based solution
for establishing an IPsec SA [RFC4877] was not available. IKEv2
does enable integration with a AAA backend.
o At the time of specifying the authentication protocol, the Mobile
IPv6 specification did not support the dynamic assignment of home
agent and home address. However, work done in the MIP6 working
group on bootstrapping of Mobile IPv6 as specified in [RFC5026]
and "MIPv6-Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario" [BOOT]
addresses this deficiency. The mechanism defined in
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
"Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6" [RFC4285] is capable of
handling authentication even in the case of dynamic assignments
(and is similar to what is used in current MIPv4 deployments).
Consequently, MIPv6 as specified at the time the authentication
protocol was being specified, did not satisfy many of the deployment
requirements. "Authentication Protocol for MIPv6" [RFC4285] along
with "MN Identifier Option for MIPv6" [RFC4283] are enabling the
deployment of Mobile IPv6 in a manner that is similar to what is
deployed in CDMA2000 networks today. This authentication model is
very similar to the one adopted by the MIP4 WG. This is explained in
detail in [3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D].
The earlier MIPv6 deployment model, which requires an IPsec SA that
is either configured manually or established using IKE, does not have
synergy with the deployment models of 3GPP2 or WiMAX networks. This
issue has however been alleviated with the publication of RFC 4877,
which enables the establishment of an IPsec SA using IKEv2 and which
is also able to integrate with the backend AAA infrastructure that is
responsible for the authentication of the MN in 3GPP2 and WiMAX
networks.
5.2. Additional Arguments for the Use of the Authentication Option
The use of IPsec for performing Registration with a home agent is not
always an optimal solution. While it is true that IPsec is viewed as
an integral part of the IPv6 stack, it is still a considerable
overhead from a deployment perspective of using IPsec as the security
mechanism for the signaling messages between the MN and HA. This
statement is a result of experience gained from deployment of Mobile
IPv4. MIPv4 does not rely on IPsec for securing the Registration
signaling messages.
Deployment of Mobile IPv6 on a large scale is possible only when the
protocol is flexible for being adapted to various scenarios. The
scenario being considered is the deployment in CDMA2000 networks or
WiMAX networks. CDMA2000 networks are currently deployed in many
countries today. WiMAX deployments in many countries began in 2008.
The packet data network architecture of CDMA2000 [3GPP2
X.S0011-002-D] includes a MIPv4 foreign agent/home agent and a
RADIUS-based AAA infrastructure for Authentication, Authorization,
and Accounting purposes. The AAA infrastructure provides
authentication capability in the case of Mobile IPv4.
Typically, the mobile node shares a security association with the
AAA-Home entity. This is the preferred mode of operation over having
a shared secret between the MN and HA because the AAA-Home entity
provides a central location for provisioning and administering the
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
shared secrets for a large number of mobiles (millions). This mode
of operation also makes dynamic home address and dynamic home agent
assignment easier. A similar approach is needed for the deployment
of Mobile IPv6 in these networks. There is no practical mechanism to
use IPsec directly with the AAA infrastructure without the use of
IKEv2 or some other mechanism that enables the establishment of the
IPsec SA between the MN and HA.
Mobile IPv6 as specified in [RFC3775] and [RFC3776] is based on a
very specific model for deployment. It anticipates the mobile node's
having a static home IPv6 address and a designated home agent. This
is not practical in most deployment scenarios being considered. An
IPsec SA is expected to be created via manual keying or established
dynamically via IKE or IKEv2. These assumptions do not necessarily
fit in very well for the deployment model envisioned in CDMA2000 or
WiMAX networks. These limitations have however been overcome as a
result of the bootstrapping specifications as per [RFC5026] and
"MIPv6-Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario" [BOOT].
CDMA2000 and WiMAX networks would prefer to allocate home addresses
to MNs on a dynamic basis. The advantage of doing so is the fact
that the HA can be assigned on a link that is close to the MN's point
of attachment. While route optimization negates the benefit of
having a home agent on a link close to the MN, it cannot always be
guaranteed that the MN and correspondent node (CN) will use or
support route optimization. There may also be instances where the
operator prefers to not allow route optimization for various reasons,
such as accounting aggregation or enforcing service contracts. In
such cases, an HA that is close to the MN's point of attachment
reduces the issues of latency, etc. of forward and reverse tunnelling
of packets between the MN and HA.
CDMA2000 networks that are operational today have large numbers of
subscribers who are authenticated via the AAA infrastructure.
Deployment of Mobile IPv6 should leverage the existing AAA
infrastructure. The security model needed in these networks is an SA
between the MN and AAA-Home entity. This is the primary security
association that should be used for authenticating and authorizing
users to utilize MIPv6 service. This SA is then used for
establishing session keys between the MN and the dynamically assigned
HA for authenticating subsequent Binding Updates and Binding
Acknowledgements between them. Establishing an IPsec SA between the
MN and HA using AAA infrastructure was not specified for Mobile IPv6
at the time the authentication protocol was being specified. RFC
3776 explains how IKE is used for establishing the SA between the MN
and HA. [RFC4877] has been published subsequently and hence the
issue of establishing an IPsec SA dynamically between the MN and HA
no longer exists. CDMA2000 network operators would prefer to assign
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
home addresses to the MN on a dynamic basis -- preferably using the
AAA infrastructure, which contains subscriber profile and capability
information. This was not possible prior to the specification of the
bootstrapping mechanism in [RFC5026].
A large subset of MNs in CDMA2000 networks do not have IKE
capability. As a result, the use of RFC 3776 for setting up the
MN-HA IPsec SA is not an option. It should also be noted that IKE
requires several transactions before it is able to establish the
IPsec SA. [RFC4877] specifies the establishment of an IPsec SA
between the MN and HA using IKEv2. It is possible that not all MNs
in a deployment will support IKEv2, and hence an alternative
mechanism provides the needed flexibility.
CDMA2000 network operators are extremely conscious in terms of the
number of messages sent and received over the air interface for
signaling. The overhead associated with sending/receiving a large
number of signaling messages over the air interface has a direct
impact on the overall capacity and cost for the operator.
Optimization of the number of messages needed for using a service
like Mobile IPv6 is of great concern. As a result, the use of IKE
for Mobile IPv6 deployment is considered as being suboptimal in
certain network architectures and deployment scenarios from the
perspective of message overhead.
Another downside of IKE for setting up the IPsec SA between the MN
and HA is that IKE does not integrate very well with the RADIUS-based
AAA backend. Since operators rely on the AAA infrastructure to
provision subscribers as well as define profiles, keys, etc. in the
AAA-Home, there is no getting away from the use of AAA in CDMA2000
networks. IKEv2 does address this problem. However, from a timeline
perspective, the availability of IKEv2 specifications for "Mobile
IPv6 Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec Architecture"
[RFC4877] and its implementations did not meet the need of operators
that were relying on 3GPP2 specifications. With the specification of
IKEv2 and publication of RFC 4877, integration with AAA backends is
no longer an issue.
In summary, the model of Mobile IPv6 deployment that mandated the
existence of an IPsec SA between the MN and HA, as specified in RFCs
3775 and 3776, was too rigid and did not meet the requirements of
operators building networks based on the CDMA2000 [3GPP2
X.S0011-002-D] specifications. To address this shortcoming, the
authentication protocol [RFC4285] was specified.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
6. Application of Mobile IPv6 in CDMA Networks
Sections 6.1 and 6.2 describe the IPv4- and IPv6-based mobility
architectures in CDMA networks, respectively. For further details
associated with the description below, please refer to Section 5,
"MIP6 Operation", in the 3GPP2 specification [3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D].
6.1. IPv4-Based Mobility Architecture in CDMA2000 Networks
The figure below shows a high level view of the key network elements
that play a role in providing IP mobility using Mobile IPv4.
+--------------+ +----------------------+
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| |F-AAA | | | |H-AAAH| |
| | +-------------------+ | |
| +---+--+ | | +--+---+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ | +---+--+ | | +--+---+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| MN +- -|- -+ PDSN + -- -- -- -- - + HA | |
| | | | /FA | | | | | |
+------+ | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
+--------------+ +----------------------+
Figure 1: CDMA2000 Packet Data Network Architecture with Mobile IPv4
The CDMA mobility architecture based on MIPv4 is explained below. In
this architecture, mobility is tightly integrated with the AAA
infrastructure. The Mobile Node is configured with an NAI (Network
Access Identifier) and an MN-AAA key. The MN-AAA key is a shared key
that is shared between the MN and the home AAA server.
Below is the access link setup procedure:
(1) Bring up the PPP on the MN/PDSN (access router link). PPP
authentication is skipped. Mobile IP authentication is
performed via the FA (Foreign Agent).
(2) The PDSN (Packet Data Serving Node) sends a Mobile IP challenge
to the MN on the PPP link (RFC 3012).
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
(3) The MN sends a MIP Registration Request (RRQ), which includes
the user's NAI, challenge, and MN-AAA extension that has a
challenge response, and an MN-HA extension, which is generated
based on the MN-HA key.
(4) The PDSN extracts the MIP NAI, challenge, and the response to
the challenge, from the MIP MN-AAA extension, and sends an
Access Request to the F-AAA (challenge/response using MD5).
(5) The F-AAA (Foreign AAA) may forward it to the H-AAA (Home AAA)
if needed (based on realm).
(6) AAA authenticates the CHAP-challenge/response and returns
"success" if authentication succeeds.
(7) The PDSN forwards the Registration Request (RRQ) to the HA.
(8) The HA authenticates the RRQ (MHAE (Mobile-Home Authentication
Extension)). The HA may optionally authenticate with the AAA
infrastructure (just like the PDSN in #4).
(9) If authentication is successful, the HA creates a binding and
sends a success Registration Reply (RRP) to the PDSN.
(10) The PDSN creates a visitor entry and forwards the RRP to the MN.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
6.2. IPv6-Based Mobility Architecture in CDMA2000 Networks
Due to the need for co-existence with MIPv4, and having the same
operational model, the 3GPP2 standards body is adopting the following
mobility architecture for MIPv6.
Access Domain Home Domain
+--------------+ +----------------------+
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| |F-AAA | | | |H-AAA | |
| | +-------------------+ | |
| +---+--+ | | +--+---+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ | +---+--+ | | +--+---+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
| MN +- -|- -+ PDSN + -- -- -- -- - + HA | |
| | | | /AR | | | | | |
+------+ | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
+--------------+ +----------------------+
Figure 2: CDMA2000 Packet Data Network Architecture with Mobile IPv6
The Mobile Node is configured with an NAI (Network Access Identifier)
and an MN-AAA key. The MN-AAA key is a shared key between the MN and
the home AAA server.
6.2.1. Overview of the Mobility Operation in IPv6-Based CDMA2000
Networks
The following steps explain at a very generic level the operation of
IP mobility in CDMA2000 networks:
(1) The MN performs link-layer establishment. This includes setting
up the PPP link. PPP-CHAP authentication is performed. This is
authenticated by the PDSN/AR (Access Router) by sending an
Access Request to the F-AAA (and to the H-AAA when/if needed).
Optionally, the MN acquires bootstrap information from the Home
Network (via the PDSN; the PDSN receives this information in
Access Accept). The bootstrap information includes home address
and home agent assignment. The MN uses stateless DHCPv6
[RFC3736] to obtain the bootstrap information from the PDSN.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 11]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
(2) The MN begins to use the home address (HoA) that was assigned in
step 1. If no HoA was assigned at step 1, the MN generates
(auto-configures) an IPv6 global unicast address based on the
prefix information received at step 1.
(3) The MN sends a Binding Update to the selected home agent. In
the BU, the MN includes the NAI option, timestamp option, and
MN-AAA auth option.
(4) The HA extracts the NAI, authenticator, etc. from the BU and
sends an Access Request to the Home RADIUS server.
(5) The Home RADIUS server authenticates and authorizes the user and
sends back a RADIUS Access Accept to the HA indicating
successful authentication and authorization.
(6) The HA performs a replay check with the ID field in the received
BU. The HA also performs proxy Duplicate Address Detection
(DAD) on the MN's home address (global) using proxy Neighbor
Solicitation as specified in [RFC4861].
(7) Assuming that proxy DAD is successful, the HA sends back a
Binding Acknowledgment to the MN. In this BAck message, the HA
includes the MN-HA mobility option, NAI mobility option, and ID
mobility option.
6.2.2. Authentication and Security Details
Access Link Setup, Access Authentication, and Bootstrapping:
(1) The MN brings up a PPP session. The PDSN triggers the MN to
perform CHAP authentication, as part of access authentication,
while bringing up the PPP link.
(2) The MN is authenticated using the PPP-CHAP by the H-AAA (Home
AAA), via the F-AAA (Foreign AAA).
(3) The H-AAA may optionally send the HoA and HA IP address to the
PDSN for bootstrapping the MN (skipping details).
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
Mobile IPv6 Authentication:
The call flow for the initial authentication (the numbers in the
parentheses correspond to the explanation below):
MN HA H-AAA
| BU to HA (4) | RADIUS Access-ReQ(5)
|------------------------------------>|------------------->|(6)
| (includes NAI option, MN-ID option, | |
| Mesg ID option, MN-AAA auth option) |RADIUS Access Accept|(7)
|
|<-------------------|
| | |
| HA/AAAH authenticates MN
|
| |(8)
|
| |
|
| BAck to MN (9) |
|
|<------------------------------------|--------------------|
| (including MN-ID option, | (10)
| Message ID option, |
| MN-HA auth options) | |
Figure 3: Flow Diagram for Initial Authentication
(4) The MN sends a Binding Update (BU) to the HA. The Binding
Update is authenticated using the MN-AAA option. The
authenticator in the MN-AAA option is calculated using the hash
of the BU and MN-AAA shared key. It uses the HMAC_SHA1
algorithm. The Security Parameter Index (SPI) field in MN-AAA
is set to 3 (as per [RFC4285]). The BU also includes the NAI
and timestamp, among other details. The hash of the BU includes
the 'timestamp' option and thus provides proof of liveness to
prevent replay.
(5) The HA, on receiving the BU, extracts the NAI, timestamp, and
authenticator from the MN-AAA option, and generates the hash of
the BU. The HA sends an Access Request to the AAA and puts this
information in 3GPP2-defined VSAs (Vendor Specific Attributes).
The NAI is inserted in the username option in the Access Request
message. The other attributes sent are: the timestamp option,
the hash of the BU (till SPI field of MN-AAA auth option), and
the authentication data from the MN-AAA auth option.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
(6) AAA (RADIUS server that interprets these attributes)
authenticates the MN based on the hash of the BU and the
authenticator. Proceed to step 7.
(7) AAA calculates a session key based on the MN-AAA shared secret
and timestamp, and sends this to the HA in an Access Accept (in
a 3GPP2-defined VSA).
(8) The HA creates a binding and a security association per
Authentication Protocol for MIPv6 [RFC4285]. The key for this
association is retrieved from the Access Accept and is referred
to as the session key. The HA associates a fixed SPI of 5 with
this SA, and is associated with the binding for the MN. (The
description of this step skips the details for timestamp
processing at the HA.)
(9) The HA sends a Binding Acknowledgement (BAck) to the MN. The
BAck has the MN-HA authentication option, authenticated using
the session key. This option has the SPI set to 5.
(10) On receiving a BAck, the MN calculates the session key (using
the same method as AAA) and associates it with an SPI value of
5.
The MN derives the session key and SA using the timestamp in the BU
that the MN sent and the MN-AAA shared key. The MN uses this key to
authenticate the MN-HA option in the Binding Ack. If authentication
is successful, the MN creates a security association with SPI=5.
This key is used to authenticate further BUs to the HA using the
MN-HA auth option. Once the binding lifetime expires and the binding
is deleted, the binding as well as the security association based on
the integrity key is removed at the MN and HA.
Migration from MobileIPv4 to MobileIPv6 utilizes the same network
architecture and, specifically, the same AAA infrastructure. Thus,
it is natural to have similar signaling in MIPv6 as in MIPv4,
specifically the authentication with AAA infrastructure.
7. Limitations of the Authentication Protocol Option
While the authentication protocol as specified in [RFC4285] provides
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] deployments a certain degree of flexibility, it
does have a few disadvantages as well. These are:
(1) The route optimization feature specified in RFC 3775 requires a
secure transport (IPsec/ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload)
mode) between the MN and HA. In cases where the authentication
protocol [RFC4285] is used as the means for securing the MIPv6
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 14]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
signaling between the MN and HA, route optimization should be
switched off unless the security of the signaling between the MN
and HA can be guaranteed via other means (such as link-layer
security in the case of 3GPP2 networks).
(2) The MIPv6 protocol is responsible for the security of the
signaling messages as opposed to relying on IPsec for providing
the security.
(3) In 3GPP2 networks, link-layer security mechanisms, ingress
filtering at the PDSN, and various network domain security
mechanisms largely ensure that reverse tunnelled packets
received by the HA do not have spoofed source addresses, and
that their contents have not been modified. This implies the HA
can determine the specific MN that sent the packet simply by
verifying the outer-source IP address matches the currently
registered care-of address. Authentication of payload packets
can be necessary for, e.g.:
- Authenticating signaling messages other than BU/BAck
between the MN and HA, such as ICMPv6, MLD, and DHCPv6.
- Enforcing access control to the network behind the HA.
- Accounting or other flow-specific processing performed by
the HA.
This means the authentication option is of limited
applicability in environments where the HA can receive
reverse-tunneled packets with spoofed source IP addresses
and/or modified contents.
(4) As described in [RFC4285], the authentication option assumes
that the MN-AAA shared key and security association are created
by out-of-band mechanisms. These mechanisms are specific to
specific deployment environments. IKEv2, on the other hand,
supports a wide range of authentication mechanisms, such as
certificates and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
methods, and is independent of the access network technology
being used. However, it would be possible to specify a similar
authentication and key management protocol for the
authentication option in the future.
(5) Sending the long-term user identity (NAI) in the clear raises
privacy concerns. These concerns are addressed by access
network and network domain security mechanisms in 3GPP2
networks, but do limit the applicability in networks where
sniffing other users' traffic is possible.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 15]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
(6) RFC 4285 does not specify a mechanism for creating the MN-HA
shared key and SA from the MN-AAA SA (unlike similar Mobile IPv4
mechanisms defined in [RFC3957]), and thus relies on deployment-
specific mechanisms not standardized in the IETF.
(7) The authentication option does not support negotiation of
cryptographic algorithms.
(8) The replay protection mechanisms in [RFC4285] rely on
timestamps, and thus require reasonably synchronized clocks (by
default, +/- 7 seconds). This assumes the MN implements, and is
configured to use, some mechanism for synchronizing its clock.
8. Security Considerations
When MIPv6 signaling messages use IPsec with ESP encapsulation, they
are accorded privacy on the links over which the messages traverse.
When MIPv6 signaling messages are secured using the authentication
protocol, such ciphering capability will have to be enabled by the
underlying link layers. It should be noted that the MIPv6 signaling
messages are susceptible to snooping/sniffing when the authentication
protocol [RFC4285] is used. Route optimization messages need to be
secured between the MN and HA and this is not possible with the
authentication protocol. However, route optimization is not
supported in the current specification of the authentication protocol
in [RFC4285].
Security issues with RFC 4285 are specifically:
1. Key length. This is being addressed in [AUTH-PRO].
2. The keys used for securing the signaling between the MN and HA
are derived from a security association that exists between the
MN and AAA. The MIPv6 keys, which are bootstrapped from the MN-
AAA SA, are transient. Limiting the lifetime of the keys to
shorter periods should be recommended.
3. Location privacy is an issue in the absence of lower-layer
security in the case of shared links.
9. Conclusion
Mobile IPv6 was published as a Standards Track RFC [RFC3775] in 2004.
Deployment of this protocol on a large scale is in the interest of
the IETF and the working group, as well as that of many people who
have worked on this. A rigid model for deployment will cause the
protocol to be limited to an academic exercise only. It is extremely
critical that the working group consider the needs of the industry
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 16]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
and the deployment scenarios, and address them accordingly. This
document captures the reasoning behind the need for the
authentication protocol, which has been published as RFC 4285. RFC
4877 has alleviated some of the issues that have been of primary
concern and were motivators for the authentication protocol.
However, the IETF should consider the architectures of networks such
as 3GPP2 and WiMAX and their security models, and enable deployment
of Mobile IPv6 without requiring IPsec.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alpesh Patel, AC Mahendra, Kuntal
Chowdhury, and Vijay Devarapalli for their input and discussions.
Jari Arkko has reviewed the ID and provided valuable feedback.
Thomas Narten has provided valuable reviews and made significant
improvements to the text in this document. In his role as the IETF
liaison to 3GPP2, Thomas Narten has ensured that the IETF understands
the 3GPP2 requirements. Pasi Eronen, in his role as the Security AD,
has reviewed and helped improve the document. Vidya Narayanan has
reviewed the document from a security directorate perspective and
provided input that has been incorporated.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for
IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko,
"Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775,
June 2004.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont,
"Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling
Between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents",
RFC 3776, June 2004.
[RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier
Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283,
November 2005.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 17]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
11.2. Informative References
[3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D] 3GPP2 X.S0011-002-D, "cdma2000 Wireless IP
Network Standard: Simple IP and Mobile IP
Access Services", http://www.3gpp2.org/
Public_html/specs/
X.S0011-002-D_v1.0_060301.pdf, February 2006.
[AUTH-PRO] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for
Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[BOOT] Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "MIP6-
Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario",
Work in Progress, April 2008.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H.
Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007.
[RFC3957] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
Registration Keys for Mobile IPv4", RFC 3957,
March 2005.
[RFC4285] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H.,
and K. Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for
Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285, January 2006.
[RFC4877] Devarapalli, V. and F. Dupont, "Mobile IPv6
Operation with IKEv2 and the Revised IPsec
Architecture", RFC 4877, April 2007.
[RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli,
"Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario",
RFC 5026, October 2007.
[WiMAX-NWG] "WiMAX Network Architecture - WiMAX End-to-End
Network Systems Architecture", May 2008, <http
://www.wimaxforum.org/documents/documents/
WiMAX_Forum_Network_Architecture_Stage_2-
3_Rel_1v1.2.zip>.
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 18]
RFC 5419 Why Authdata Option for MIPv6 January 2009
Authors' Addresses
Basavaraj Patil
Nokia
6021 Connection Drive
Irving, TX 75039
USA
EMail: basavaraj.patil@nokia.com
Gopal Dommety
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: gdommety@cisco.com
Patil & Dommety Informational [Page 19]