1
Technical Report TR-OU-TNRL-04-100. Available at http://www.cs.ou.edu/~atiq/papers/04-TR-OU-TNRL-04-100.pdf
TraSH: A Transport Layer Seamless Handover for
Mobile Networks
Shaojian Fu1 , Mohammed Atiquzzaman1 , Liran Ma1 ,William Ivancic2 ,Yong-Jin Lee1 , Justin S. Jones1 , Song Lu1
1 Telecommunications and Networks Research Lab, School of Computer Science,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-6151, USA.
2 Satellite Networks & Architectures Branch, NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd. MS 54-8, Cleveland, OH 44135.
Technical Report: OU-TNRL-04-100
January 2004
Abstract— The Internet Engineering Task Force has developed
Mobile IP to handle mobility of Internet hosts at the network
layer. Mobile IP, however, suffers from a number of drawbacks
such as high handover latency, packet loss, and conflict with
network security solutions. In this paper, we describe TraSH, a
new Transport Layer Seamless Handover solution to mobility.
TraSH utilizes multi-homing to achieve a seamless handover of
a mobile host, and is designed to solve many of the drawbacks
of Mobile IP. Various aspects, such as handover, signalling,
location management, data transfer, and security considerations
of TraSH are discussed. The Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP), with built-in multi-homing capability, is used
to illustrate the concepts of TraSH.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Mobile IP (MIP) [1] is the standard proposed by IETF to
handle mobility of Internet hosts for mobile data communication. For example, it enables a TCP connection to remain alive
and receive packets when a mobile host moves from one point
of attachment to another. Mobile IP is based on the concept
of Home Agent (HA) and Foreign Agent (FA) for routing of
packets from one point of attachment to the next. During the
handover from the HA to the FA, a mobile host (MH) will need
to register with the FA, wait for the allocation of channels, and
update its location in the HA database.
While MIP is a widely accepted concept in both research
and industry, several problems exist when using MIP in a
mobile computing environment. The most important issues of
MIP identified to date include:
• High handover latency [2]: A MH needs to complete the
following three steps before it can receive forwarded data
from the previous point of attachment: (i) discovering the
new Care of Address (CoA), (ii) registering the new CoA
with the HA, and (iii) forwarding packets from the HA
to the current CoA.
• High packet loss rate [3], [4]: During the HA registration
period, some or all of the packets destined to the MH’s
old CoA will be lost since the old point of attachment
can not communicate with the MH during this period,
nor does it know the new point of attachment of the MH.
The research reported in this paper was funded by NASA Grant NAG32922
•
•
Inefficient routing [2]: In base MIP, large amount of data
is routed to the HA, and then tunnelled to the MH. This
wastes network resources and requires high processing
power at mobile agents (HA and FA). This may give rise
to scalability issues as the number of MHs managed by a
HA increases. Moreover, the failure of a single HA may
prevent a large number of mobile users from receiving
forwarded packets from the HA unless a backup scheme
like automatic HA discovery is used.
Conflict with network security solutions [2]: Base MIP
does not cooperate well when the HA is behind a firewall and the MH is outside the firewall, unless firewall
transversal solution [5] is used. Moreover, base MIP has
difficulty in the presence of a foreign network implementing ingress filtering, unless reverse tunnelling, where the
HA’s IP address is used as the exit point of the tunnel, is
used to send data from the MH.
A. Recent research on Mobile IP
Research efforts in Mobile IP can be generally classified
into two categories: reducing handover latency and packet
loss. Hierarchical IP [6], Hawaii [7], Cellular IP [8] use
Hierarchical foreign agent structure to reduce the frequency
and latency of binding updates by handling most of the
handovers locally. A hierarchical FA structure also reduces
the possibility that packets are directed to an outdated FA by
multiple tunnelling process, thus reducing the packet loss rate.
Low latency handoffs in Mobile IPv4 [4] use pre-registrations
and post-registrations by utilizing link layer event triggers to
reduce the handover latency. Optimized smooth handoff [9]
not only uses the hierarchical FA structure, but also makes
the previously visited FA buffer to forward packets to MH’s
new location. To facilitate packet rerouting after handover
and reduce packet losses, Jung et.al. [10] introduces location
database that maintains the time delay between the MH and
the crossover node. Mobile Routing Table (MRT) has been
introduced at the home and foreign agents in [11], and a packet
forwarding scheme similar to [9] is also used between FAs
to reduce packet losses during handover. A reliable mobile
multicast protocol (RMMP) proposed in [12] uses multicast
2
D. Paper structure
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Sec. II
gives a brief introduction to SCTP’s multi-homing feature,
Sec. III outlines the handover signalling procedures in TraSH,
Sec. IV discusses location management method that can be
used with TraSH and the data transfer path used by TraSH
after the handover. Performance comparison between TraSH
and MIP is provided in Sec. V. Sec. VI discusses the security
considerations of TraSH. Finally, concluding remarks are
presented in Sec. VII.
II. A
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO
SCTP MULTI - HOMING
Multi-homing allows an association between two end points
to span across multiple IP addresses or network interface
cards. An example of SCTP multi-homing is shown in Fig. 1,
where the two end points are connected through two wireless
access networks. The correspondent node (CN) is singlehomed, while the Mobile Host (MH) is multi-homed. The
MH can use one or two interface cards as long as the two
IP addresses can be bound into the association. One of the
MH’s IP addresses is designated as the primary destination
address for the transmission of data by the CN, while the
other one can be used as a backup in the case of failure of the
primary address, or when the upper layer application at the
CN explicitly requests the use of the backup address.
Correspondent
Node
One SCTP
Association
1
Core
Router
Pa
th
2
As the percentage of real-time traffic over wireless networks
keeps growing, the deficiencies of the network layer based
Mobile IP in terms of high latency and packet loss becomes
more obvious. The question that naturally arises is: Can we
find an alternative approach to network layer based solution for
mobility support? Since most of the applications in the Internet
are end-to-end, a transport layer mobility solution would be a
natural candidate for an alternative approach.
A new transport protocol, called Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), was proposed by IETF in October
2000.The design of SCTP absorbed many of the strengths
of TCPthat led to its success during the explosive growth
of the Internet. Moreover, SCTP incorporated several new
features that are not available in TCP. Due to its new attractive
features, SCTP has recently received much attention from the
research community, and has become one of the hot topics in
networking technology [15], [16], [17].
Multi-homing is one of the most prominent features of
SCTP. The built-in multi-homing support in SCTP was initially designed to exploit network redundancy to meet the
requirements of high-availability applications (such as communication between SS7 signalling points). But this feature
can also be very useful in mobile computing environments. As
pointed out in Sec. I, with only one COA address in MIP, the
MH cannot communicate with the old mobile agent while the
MH is registering with the new mobile agent. This restriction
gives rise to high handover latency and high packet losses.
Even if the various proposed improvements [6]-[14] for MIP
are used, this fundamental restriction can not be overcome,
since different MIP extensions still use only one interface for
communication.
The objective of this paper is to propose a new scheme
for supporting mobility called Transport Layer Seamless
Handover (TraSH) by utilizing SCTP’s multi-homing feature.
Similar in principle to a number of current efforts [18], [19],
[20], the basic idea of TraSH is to exploit multi-homing
to keep the old path alive while setting up the new path,
thus achieving a seamless handover between adjacent subnets.
Although we illustrate TraSH using SCTP, it is important
to note that TraSH can cooperate with normal IPv4 or IPv6
infrastructure without the support of Mobile IP.
The contributions of our paper can be outlined as follows:
• Propose and develop Transport Layer based Seamless
Handover (TraSH) that is expected to solve several
problems faced by MIP. Here “seamless” means low
latency and low packet loss.
• Illustrate the handover procedure and location management in TraSH and compare them with MIP.
• Compare the data transfer paths of TraSH and MIP.
• Discuss the security considerations of the new scheme.
th
B. Motivation of TraSH
C. Contributions of current research
Pa
to route the missing packets to adjacent subnets to ensure low
packet loss rate resulting from MH roaming.
To eliminate the triangular routing problem, Route Optimization (RO), an optional feature in Mobile IPv4, allows a
Correspondent Node (CN) to send packets directly to the MH’s
new COA address. RO is built in as an integral part of Mobile
IPv6 [13]. In Mobile IPv6, the concept of foreign agent has
been removed since the available IP address space is large and
the MH can easily get a co-located COA (CCOA) address. As
a result, the MH itself acts as the exit point of the packet
tunnel. Like the Hierarchical IP [6] in MIPv4, Hierarchical
MIPv6 mobility management [14] also introduces a hierarchy
of mobile agents to reduce the registration latency and the
possibility of an outdated CCOA address.
Wireless
Access
Network2
Wireless
Access
Network1
Access
Router 1
IP 1
IP 2
Access
Router 2
Multi-homed
Mobile Host
Fig. 1.
An SCTP association with multi-homed mobile host.
Retransmission of lost packets can also be performed over
the backup address. SCTP’s built-in support for multi-homed
endpoints is especially useful in environments that require
3
high-availability applications, such as SS7 signaling transport.
A multi-homed SCTP association can speedup the recovery
from link failures without interrupting the data transfer [21].
III. H ANDOVER SIGNALLING IN TraSH
We assume that the direction of traffic flow is from the CN
to MH, which corresponds to services like file downloading
or web browsing by mobile users. In this section, we outline
TraSHś signalling procedure during the handover process.
The complete handover procedure can be divided into five
parts which are described below. The main idea of TraSH is
to exploit multi-homing to keep the old data path alive until
the new data path is ready to take over the data transfer, thus
achieve a low latency, low loss handover between adjacent
subnets.
A. STEP 1: Obtain new IP address
Referring to Fig. 1, the handover preparation procedure
begins when the MH moves into the overlapping radio coverage area of two adjacent subnets. Once the MH receives
the router advertisement from the new access router (AR2), it
should initiate the procedure of obtaining a new IP address
(IP2 in Fig. 1). This can be accomplished through several
methods: DHCP, DHCPv6, or IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SAA) [22]. The main difference between these
methods lies in whether the IP address is generated by a server
(DHCP/DHCPv6) or by the MH itself (IPv6 SAA). For cases
where the MH is not concerned about the its IP address, but
only requires the address to be unique and routable, IPv6 SAA
is a preferred method for TraSH to obtain a new address since
it significantly reduces the required signalling time.
B. STEP 2: Add IP addresses to association
When the SCTP association is initially setup, only the CN’s
IP address and the MH’s first IP address (IP1) are exchanged
between CN and MH. After the MH obtains another IP address
(IP2 in STEP 1), MH should bind IP2 into the association (in
addition to IP1) and notify CN about the availability of the
new IP address.
SCTP provides a graceful method to modify an existing
association when the MH wishes to notify the CN that a new
IP address will will be added to the association and the old IP
addresses will be probably be taken out of the association. The
IETF Transport Area Working Group (TSVWG) is working
on the ”SCTP Address Dynamic Reconfiguration” Internet
draft [23], which defines two new chunk types (ASCONF and
ASCONF-ACK) and several parameter types (Add IP Address,
Delete IP address, Set Primary Address, etc.). This option will
be very useful in mobile environments for supporting service
reconfiguration without interrupting on-going data transfers.
In TraSH, MH notifies CN that IP2 is available for data
transmission by sending an ASCONF chunk to CN with
parameter type set to 0xC001 (Add IP Address). On receipt of
this chunk, CN will add IP2 to its local control block for the
association and reply to MH with an ASCONF-ACK chunk
indicating the success of the IP addition. At this time, IP1 and
IP2 are both ready for receiving data transmitted from CN to
MH.
C. STEP 3: Redirect data packets to new IP address
When MH moves further into the coverage area of wireless access network2, data path2 becomes increasingly more
reliable than data path1. CN can then redirect data traffic to
the new IP address (IP2) to increase the possibility of data
being delivered successfully to the MH. This task can be
accomplished by the MH sending an ASCONF chunk with the
Set-Primary-Address parameter, which results in CN setting its
primary destination address to MH as IP2.
The critical questions here are three-fold: (1) What kind
of information should be used to trigger Set-Primary-Address,
Layer 2, Layer 3 or Layer 4 handovers? (2) Who initiates SetPrimary-Address: CN or MH? (3) When is the right time to
execute Set-Primary-Address? The answers to questions (2)
and (3) depend largely on the answer to question (1). If MH
can utilize the information from Layer 2, such as radio link
Signal/Noise Ratio (SNR), Bit Error Rate (BER), or available
bandwidth, MH has much more information than CN about
whether the primary data path should be switched over to
the new path. To compensate for the transmission/propagation
delay from MH to CN, the MH can send the ASCONF chunk
predictively at a time which is RTT/2 before the optimal
switchover time. One disadvantage of this method is that
it requires cross-layer communication in the protocol stack,
which may result in difficulties in protocol deployment. If
Layer 2 information is not available to MH, CN and MH
should have the same knowledge about the link status. In this
case, it may be preferable to let CN initiate the Set-PrimaryAddress by observing the packet loss pattern over the old data
path; this will have the advantage of reducing the handover
latency by RTT/2.
D. STEP 4: Updating the Location manager
TraSH supports location management by employing a
location manager that maintains a database which records the
correspondence between MH’s identity and current primary IP
address. MH can use any unique information as its identity,
such as the home address (as in MIP), domain name, or a
public key defined in the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI).
Following our example, once the Set-Primary-Address action is completed successfully, MH should update the location
manager’s relevant entry with the new IP address (IP2). The
purpose of this procedure is to ensure that after MH moves
from the wireless access network1 into network2, further
association setup requests can be routed to MH’s new IP
address IP2. This update has no impact on existing active
associations.
We can observe a important difference between TraSH and
MIP: the location management and data traffic forwarding
functions are coupled together in MIP, whereas they are
decoupled in TraSH to speedup handover and make the
deployment more flexible.
E. STEP 5: Delete or deactivate obsolete IP address
When MH moves out of the coverage of wireless access
network1, no new or retransmitted data packets should be
directed to address IP1. In TraSH, MH can notifies CN that
4
F. Timing diagram of TraSH
perform vertical handovers from WLAN to a cellular network,
and then to a satellite network. The multi-homed mobile host
in TraSH is equipped with multiple interface cards that can
bind IP addresses allocated from different kinds of wireless
network access technologies.
Correspondent
Node
Cellular
Network
-0
L
T
0
4
1
N
1
1
0
C
-0
N
G
4
C
IN
R
R
R
O
F
L
I
E
N
ID
L
E
M
Hub
802.11/
HiperLAN2
WLAN
Multi-homed
Mobile Host
Fig. 3.
Fig. 2 summarizes the signalling sequences involved in
TraSH. Here we assume IPv6 SAA and MH initiated SetPrimary-Address. Timing diagrams for other scenarios can be
drawn similarly, but are not shown here because of space
limitations.
L
A
D
0
1
R
S
A
Satellite
Network
6
IP1 is out of service for data transmission by sending an
ASCONF chunk to CN with parameter type set to 0xC002
(Delete IP Address). Once received, CN will delete IP1 from
its local association control block and reply to MH with
an ASCONF-ACK chunk indicating the success of the IP
deletion.
A less aggressive way to prevent CN from sending data
to IP1 is for the MH to advertise zero receiver window
(corresponding to IP1) to CN [24]. This will give CN an
impression that the interface (on which IP1 is bound) buffer is
full and can not receive any more data. By deactivating, instead
of deleting the IP address, TraSH can adapt more gracefully
to MH’s zigzag (often referred to as ping pong) movement
patterns, and reuse the previously obtained IP address (IP1) as
long as the lifetime of IP1 has not expired. This will reduce
the latency and signalling traffic that would have otherwise
been caused by obtaining a new IP address.
Vertical handover using TraSH.
IV. L OCATION MANAGEMENT AND DATA TRANSFER PATH
IN TraSH
A. Location management
Mobile
Host
AR1
AR2
Location
Manager
Correspondent
Node
sement
Adverti
1. Compute the new IP Address by
agent advertisement (IPv6 SAA)
2. Send
Asconf
Chunk
to noti
fy new
IP
Agent
discover
new IP
address
em
i
T
2. Send ASCONF-ACK Chunk
3. Send ASCONF Chu
nk to set the new obtained
IP
as primary destination
4. Location Reg
4. Location Re
Fig. 2.
3. Send A
CKChunk
SCONF-A
Location
update
and CN
update
ister Request
5. Delete or
deactivate ol
d IP
gister Reply
unk (if delete)
NF-ACK Ch
CO
AS
d
Sen
5.
Timeline of TraSH
In this figure, the numbers before the events correspond to
the step numbers in Sec. III-A to III-E, respectively.
G. Vertical handover between different technologies
Different types of access network technologies can be
integrated with each other to give mobile users a transparent
view of the Internet. Handover is no longer only limited to
between two subnets in WLAN, or between two cells in a
cellular network (horizontal handover). In the future, mobile
users will expect seamless handover between heterogeneous
access networks (vertical handover).
Since MIP operates in Layer 3 and is independent of the
underlying access network technology, MIP may be used
in a heterogeneous environment. However, there are some
disadvantages in using Mobile IP for vertical handovers [25].
TraSH is well suited to meeting the requirements of vertical
handover. Fig. 3 illustrates an example of using TraSH to
As mentioned in Sec. III-D, TraSH needs to setup a location manager for maintaining a database of the correspondence
between MH’s identity and its current primary IP address.
Unlike MIP, the location manager in TraSH is not restricted
to the same subnet as MH’s home network (in fact, TraSH
has not concept of home or foreign network). This will make
the deployment of TraSH much more flexible than MIP.
When a location manager is used, the location management
can be done in the following sequence as shown in Fig. 4:
1) MH updates the location manager with the current
primary IP address.
2) When CN wants to setup a new association with MH,
CN first sends a query to the location manager with
MH’s identity (home address, domain name, or public
key, etc.)
3) Location manager replies to CN with the current primary
IP address of MH.
4) CN sends an SCTP INIT chunk to MH’s new primary
IP address to setup the association.
If we use the domain name as MH’s identity, then we can
merge the location manager into a DNS server. The idea of
using a DNS server to locate mobile users can be traced back
to [26]. The advantage of this approach is its transparency
to existing network applications that use domain name to IP
address mapping.
Since MIP requires that the location management entity
must reside on the HA, this location manager (DNS server)
based method is not applicable to MIP. In contrast to MIP,
TraSH decouples location management from data traffic forwarding, and hence can use this DNS server based location
management. An Internet administrative domain can allocate
one or more location servers for its registered mobile users.
5
nt
rre
cu
fo r tio n
y
er o ca
the
Qu s l
r to
2 . M H’
we
ns ue ry
A
Q
3.
4.
Se
tu
p
HA (MIP)/Location
Manager (TraSH)
&
Correspondent
Node
Da
t
a
Pa
ck
2M
et s
1. Location Update
,5
Domain Address
1.0.0
Internet
/2
0/
50
s Router
2M
s
0m
,5
ms
2M
,4
,4
m
2M
s
Access Router
of Current Domain
Location Manager/
DNS server
m
CN
FA1 (MIP) /Access
Router 1 (TraSH)
Domain Address
2.0.0
FA2 (MIP) /Access
Router 2 (TraSH)
Domain Address
3.0.0
Mobile
Host
MH
Fig. 4.
Location management in TraSH
Fig. 6.
Correspondent
Node
w /R
e tr
P a ansm
cke
itte
ts
d
Pack
e ts s
o ld p e n t to
a th
Ne
Internet
Access Router
of Current Domain
Location
Manager
Access Router
of Previous Domain
BS of Previous Domain
BS of Current Domain
Mobile
Host
Fig. 5.
Data transfer path after a TraSH handover.
Compared to MIP’s requirement that each subnet must have a
location management entity (HA), TraSH can reduce system
complexity and operating cost significantly by not having such
a requirement. TraSH, however, requires a mobile user to
provide the IP address of the location manager when he/she
publish his/her identity.
B. Data transfer path
The data transfer path after a TraSH handover is illustrated
in Fig. 5. The difference between TraSH and MIP is that
TraSH sends data packets directly to the MH instead of
going through the HA. This eliminates the infamous triangular
routing problem encountered in MIP. Note that, in TraSH, the
retransmitted packets (due to packets lost during the handover)
from CN should also be directed to MH’s new IP address
since the old IP address is very likely unreachable. In contrast
to Mobile IP, there is no Home or Foreign agents; TraSH,
however, requires a location manager for the CN to locate the
current position of the MH when a new association setup is
initiated by the CN.
V. P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON
In this section, we will present performance comparison
results based on ns-2 simulation. We have implemented the
2.0.1
MH
3.0.1 MH
Simulation topology.
preliminary version of TraSH in ns-2 simulator, and the ns-2
patch for MIP [27] from U.C. Berkeley is used for simulating
MIP’s performance. To make a fair comparison, we have used
SCTP as the transport protocol for both MIP and TraSH.
Fig. 6 shows the network topology used for the simulation.
The link bandwidth and propagation delay are listed along the
links. An FTP source agent is attached to CN and a sink agent
is attached at the MH. Each base station has a coverage of
40 meters in radius, and the overlapping region between two
base stations is 10 meters. The MH moves between the two
domains with a ping-pong style, with a handover frequency
ranging from 5 to 30 handovers per minute.
Fig. 7(a) shows that when the location update delay (the
delay between MH and HA in case of mobile IP, between
MH and location manager in case of TraSH) is high, TraSH
has an obvious higher throughput over MIP. This is because
TraSH eliminated the tri-angular routing in MIP and in
TraSH MH can receive packets arriving from the old path
while registering through the new path. Also the segment
drops caused by handover in TraSH is significantly less than
in Mobile IP due to the TraSH’s ability to receive packets
coming from the old path during handover (see Fig. 7(b)).
When the location update delay is low, the throughput of
MIP and TraSH is similar, due to the effect of triangular routing in MIP being less (see Fig. 7(c)). However, the segment
drops in MIP is still noticeably higher than TraSH due to
MIP’s inability to receive packets in fly during the registration
process (see Fig. 7(d)). In both Figs. 7(b) and 7(d), the segment
drops first increase as the handover frequency increases; this
is due to the preparation time for handover becoming less. The
segment drops then decrease after a threshold; this is because
of SCTP’s congestion control taking the dominance and CN
backing off to reduce packet losses.
VI. S ECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
The communication medium of mobile wireless environment is openly exposed to intruders, which makes the mobile
network more vulnerable to malicious attacks than a wired
network. A protocol supporting user mobility must consider
associated security risks. In this section, we consider several
security-related issues in TraSH.
6
500
No. of segment drops
Throughput (Kb/s)
TraSH
Mobile IP
300
200
100
0
0
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
800
400
5
10
15
20
Handover/min
25
TraSH
Mobile IP
600
400
200
0
0
30
(a) Throughput with higher location update delay (50ms)
5
10
15
20
Handover/min
25
30
(b) Segment drops with higher
location update delay (50ms)
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol is a standardtrack transport layer protocol proposed by IETF. This article
introduces a new mobile handover scheme called TraSH,
which utilizes the multi-homing feature of SCTP to keep the
old data path alive while setting up the new data path. This
scheme can cooperate with normal IPv4 or IPv6 infrastructure
without the support of Mobile IP. Different aspects of the
scheme are discussed including handover signalling procedure,
location management, data transfer pathes, handover performance comparison with Mobile IP and security considerations.
500
1000
TraSH
Mobile IP
No. of segment drops
Throughput (Kb/s)
400
300
200
100
0
0
5
10
15
20
Handover/min
25
(c) Throughput with lower location update delay (20ms)
Fig. 7.
30
800
R EFERENCES
TraSH
Mobile IP
600
400
200
0
0
5
10
15
20
Handover/min
25
30
(d) Segment drops with lower
location update delay (20)ms
Performance Comparison of TraSH with MIP
A. Cooperation with Fire-walls and Ingress Filtering
As discussed in Sec. I, MIP requires firewall transversal
solution [5] to resolve conflict with network security solutions.
In TraSH, there is no such notion as home network, so the
problem of fire-wall at the home network in MIP does not
apply to TraSH.
TraSH has the advantage of not being affected by ingress
filtering. This is because the MH uses the new IP address
obtained from the new domain as its source IP address for
outgoing packets. Since this source IP address belongs to the
same subnet as the Border Router receiving the data packet,
the Border Router does not activate Ingress Filtering, as is
done in the case of MIP.
B. Dynamic address reconfiguration
TraSH needs to employ an SCTP option called Dynamic
address reconfiguration (see Sec. III). The use of this option
creates an extra security risk called traffic-redirection attack.
An attacker “A” claims that its IP address should be added into
an established association between “H1 ” and “H2 ”, and that
further communication should be directed to this IP address.
Therefore, an IP authentication process needs to be employed
for address reconfiguration signalling. IPSec and Internet
Key Exchange (IKE) protocols were not initially designed to
support multi-homed sessions efficiently; they need to create
a separate database entry or perform a key negotiation for
each pair of source/destination address, which is a waste of
memory and time. IETF IPSec working group has a relevant
standard (RFC 3554 [28]), which provides several functional
requirements and recommendations for using IPSec and IKE
with SCTP multi-homing.
[1] C. Perkins editor, “IP Mobility Support.” IETF RFC 3344, August 2002.
[2] C. E. Perkins, “Mobile Networking Through Mobile IP,” IEEE Internet
Computing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 58–69, January/February 1998.
[3] Jarkko Sevanto, Mika Liljeberg, and Kimmo E. E. Raatikainen, “Introducing quality-of-service and traffic classes into wireless mobile
networks,” Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on
Wireless mobile multimedia, Dallas, Texas, pp. 21–29, 1998.
[4] “Low latency handoffs in Mobile IPv4.” IETF DRAFT, draft-ietfmobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4-07.txt, October 2003.
[5] G. Montenegro and V. Gupta, “Sun’s SKIP firewall traversal for Mobile
IP.” IETF RFC 2356, June 1998.
[6] “Mobile IP regional registration.” IETF DRAFT, draft-ietf-mobileip-regtunnel-04.txt, March 2001.
[7] “IP micro-mobility support using HAWAII.” IETF DRAFT, draft-ietfmobileip-hawaii-00.txt, June 1999.
[8] “Cellular IP.” IETF DRAFT, draft-ietf-mobileip-cellularip-00.txt, December 1999.
[9] C.E. Perkins and K.Y. Wang, “Optimized smooth handoffs in mobile
ip,” IEEE International Symposium on Computers and Communications,
pp. 340 –346, July 1999.
[10] M.C. Jung, J.S. Park, D.M. Kim, H.S. Park, and J.Y. Lee, “Optimized
handoff management method considering micro mobility in wireless
access network,” 5th IEEE International Conference on High Speed
Networks and Multimedia Communications, pp. 182 –186, July 2002.
[11] I.W. Wu, W.S. Chen, H.E. Liao, and F.F. Young, “A seamless handoff
approach of Mobile IP protocol for mobile wireless data networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 335–
344, May 2002.
[12] W. Liao, C.A. Ke, and J.R. Lai, “Reliable multicast with host mobility,”
IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), pp. 1692
–1696, November 2000.
[13] “Mobility support in IPv6.” IETF DRAFT, draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv624.txt, June 2003.
[14] “Hierarchical mobile ipv6 mobility management (HMIPv6).” draft-ietfmipshop-hmipv6-00.txt, June 2003.
[15] R. Stewart and C. Metz, “SCTP: New transport protocol for TCP/IP,”
IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 64–69, November/December
2001.
[16] A.L. Caro, J.R. Iyengar, and P.D. Amer et. al, “SCTP: a proposed
standard for robust internet data transport,” IEEE Computer, vol. 36,
no. 11, pp. 56–63, November 2003.
[17] S. Fu and M. Atiquzzaman, “SCTP: State of the art in research, products,
and technical challenges,” To appear in IEEE Communication Magazine,
March 2004.
[18] S. J. Koh, M. J. Lee, M. L. Ma, and M. Tuexen, Mobile SCTP for
Transport Layer Mobility. draft-sjkoh-sctp-mobility-03.txt, February
2004.
[19] W. Xing, H. Karl, and A. Wolisz, “M-SCTP: Design and prototypical
implementation of an end-to-end mobility concept,” 5th Intl. Workshop
The Internet Challenge: Technology and Applications, Berlin, Germany,
October 2002.
[20] L. Li, “PKI based end-to-end mobility using SCTP,” MobiCom 2002,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA, September 2002.
[21] A. Jungmaier, E.P. Rathgeb, and M. Tuxen, “On the use of SCTP in
failover-scenarios,” International Conference on Information Systems,
Analysis and Synthesis, Orlando, Florida, pp. 363–368, July 2002.
7
[22] S. Thomson and T. Narten, “IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration.”
IETF RFC 2462, December 1998.
[23] R. Stewart, M. Ramalho, and Q. Xie et. al., “Stream control transmission
protocol (SCTP) dynamic address reconfiguration.” draft-ietf-tsvwgaddip-sctp-06.txt, September 2002.
[24] T. Goff, J. Moronski, D. S. Phatak, and V. Gupta, “Freeze-TCP: A
true end-to-end TCP enhancement mechanism for mobile environments,”
IEEE INFOCOM, Telaviv, Israel, pp. 1537–1545, March 2000.
[25] S. Dixit, “Wireless IP and its challenges for the heterogeneous environment,” Wireless Personal Communications, pp. 261–273, August 2002.
[26] B. Awerbuch and D. Peleg, “Concurrent online tracking of mobile users,”
ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Communications, Architectures and
Protocols, pp. 221–233, September 1991.
[27] Mobile
IP
Extensions
to
the
ns
Network
Simulator.
www.icsi.berkeley.edu/ widmer/mnav/ns-extension/.
[28] S. Bellovin, J. Ioannidis, A. Keromytis, and R. Stewart, “On the use
of stream control transmission protocol (SCTP) with IPsec.” IETF RFC
3554, July 2003.