Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 331–349 | Cite as

Secure Route Optimization Scheme for Network Mobility Support in Heterogeneous Mobile Networks

Article
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

With the proliferation of various wireless services such as Third Generation, Fourth Generation, Wireless Local Area Network, and Personal Area Network, etc., users request for access to the Next Generation Internet in more heterogeneous networks. The network mobility working group within the Internet Engineering Task Force introduced the Network Mobility (NEMO) concept as a network mobility basic support protocol (i.e., network moves as a unit) extended from Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6). However, this solution has the limitation of route optimization that should be always passed by Home Agents (HAs) using a bi-directional tunnel with its Mobile Router (MR). It is not also entirely supported a security requirements and various attacks (e.g., Denial of Service attack, redirect attack, etc.). Most of all, it is not mentioned how authentication issues between a HA and a Correspondent Node (CN) are solved in NEMO environments. To ameliorate these problems, we propose novel authenticated route optimization scheme to be performed by MR and CN of Mobile Network Nodes, which uses IDentity-based cryptosystem (that is, a Multi-Private Key Generator Based Authenticated Key Agreement between MRs) to look upon heterogeneous NEMO environments. In performance analysis, we analytically compute the protocol’s connectivity recovery and end-to-end delay time and then compare the security and the efficiency of proposed scheme with the NEMO Basic support protocol, i.e., RFC 3963.

Keywords

Network mobility 4G MPB-AKA-MR2 protocol Authenticated route optimization Heterogeneous mobile networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Johnshon, D., Perkins, C., & Arkko, J. (2005). Mobility support in IPv6.In Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 3775.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devaraalli, B. V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., & Thuber, P. (2006). Network mobility basic support protocol. In IETF, RFC 3963.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., & Zhao, F. (2008). Network mobility route optimization problem statement. In Internet draft, draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03.txt (work in progress).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aura, T. (2005, March). Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA). In IETF, RFC 3972.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fathi, H., Shin, S., Kobara, K., Chakraborty, S. S., Imai, H., & Prasad, R. (2008). LR-AKE-based AAA for network mobility (NEMO) over wireless links. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24(9), 1545–1557.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koo, J. D., & Lee, D. Ch. (2007). Extended ticket-based binding update (ETBU) protocol for mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) networks. IEICE Transactions on Communications, 90(4), 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, S., Lee, H., & Oh, H. (2006). Enhanced ID-based authenticated key agreement protocols for a multiple independent PKG environment. In ICICS 2006. Lecture Notes on Computer Science (Vol. 3783, pp.145–152).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boneh, D., & Franklin, M. (2001). Identity-based encryption from the Weil Pairing. In Advanced in cryptology, Crypto 2001, Lecture Notes on Computer Science (Vol. 2139, pp. 213–229).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., & Dupont, F. (2005). Using IPsec to Protect Mobile IPv6 signaling between mobile nodes and home agents. In IETF RFC 3776.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ernst, T., & Lach, H.-Y. (2008, November). Network mobility support terminology. In Internet draft, draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt (work in progress).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng, C., Zhao, F., Watari, M., & Thubert, P. (2008). Network mobility route optimization solution space analysis. In Internet draft, draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-03.txt (work in progress).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calderon, M., Bernados, C. J., Bagnulo, M., & Soto, I. (2005). Securing route optimization in NEMO. In Third international symposium on modeling and optimization in mobile, ad hoc, and wireless networks (WiOpt’05) (pp. 248–254).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCullagh, N., & Barreto, P. S. L. M. (2005). A new two-party identity-based authenticated key agreement. In Proceedings of CTRSA 2005, Lecture Notes on Computer Science (Vol. 3376, pp. 262–274).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellare, M., & Rogaway, P. (1994). Entity authentication and key distribution. In Advance in cryptologyCrypto’93, Lecture Notes on Computer Science (Vol. 773, pp. 232–249).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang, C. M., Lee, C. H., & Zheng, J. R. (2006). A novel SIP-based route optimization for network mobility. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24(9), 1682–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahn, Y., Lee, T., & Choo, H. (2009). Lightweight bindings for mobile routers. In ICCSA 2009, Lecture Notes on Computer Science (Vol. 3981, pp. 661–670).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kleinrock, L. (1975). Queuing system: Theory, Vol I. New York: Wiley.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Convergence SecurityKyonggi UniversitySuwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.R&D CenterBluwise Inc.DaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations