[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-mip4-m...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

BEST CURRENT PRACTICE

Network Working Group                                     V. Devarapalli
Request for Comments: 5266                                      Wichorus
BCP: 136                                                       P. Eronen
Category: Best Current Practice                                    Nokia
                                                               June 2008


        Secure Connectivity and Mobility Using Mobile IPv4 and
                IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming (MOBIKE)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   Enterprise users require mobility and secure connectivity when they
   roam and connect to the services offered in the enterprise.  Secure
   connectivity is required when the user connects to the enterprise
   from an untrusted network.  Mobility is beneficial when the user
   moves, either inside or outside the enterprise network, and acquires
   a new IP address.  This document describes a solution using Mobile
   IPv4 (MIPv4) and mobility extensions to IKEv2 (MOBIKE) to provide
   secure connectivity and mobility.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Solution Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Access Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  Access Mode: 'c' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  Access Mode: 'f' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.3.  Access Mode: 'mc'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Mobility within the Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Mobility When outside the Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.4.  Crossing Security Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.1.  Operation When Moving from an Untrusted Network  . . .  8
       3.4.2.  Operation When Moving from a Trusted Network . . . . .  9
   4.  NAT Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Applicability to a Mobile Operator Network  . . . . . 13



Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


1.  Introduction

   A typical enterprise network consists of users connecting to the
   services from a trusted network (intranet), and from an untrusted
   network (Internet).  The trusted and untrusted networks are typically
   separated by a demilitarized zone (DMZ).  Access to the intranet is
   controlled by a firewall and a Virtual Private Network (VPN) gateway
   in the DMZ.

   Enterprise users, when roaming on untrusted networks, most often have
   to authenticate themselves to the VPN gateway and set up a secure
   tunnel in order to access the intranet.  The use of IPsec VPNs is
   very common to enable such secure connectivity to the intranet.  When
   the user is on the trusted network, VPNs are not used.  However, the
   users benefit tremendously when session mobility between subnets,
   through the use of Mobile IPv4, is available.

   There has been some work done on using Mobile IPv4 and IPsec VPNs to
   provide roaming and secure connectivity to an enterprise [RFC5265]
   [RFC4093].  The solution described in [RFC5265] was designed with
   certain restrictions, including requiring no modifications to the VPN
   gateways, and involves the use of two layers of MIPv4, with one home
   agent inside the intranet and one in the Internet or in the DMZ
   before the VPN gateway.  The per-packet overhead is very high in this
   solution.  It is also challenging to implement and have two instances
   of MIPv4 active at the same time on a mobile node.  However, the
   solution described here is only applicable when Internet Key Exchange
   Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) IPsec VPNs are used.

   This document describes an alternate solution that does not require
   two layers of MIPv4.  The solution described in this document uses
   Mobile IPv4 when the mobile node is on the trusted network and
   MOBIKE-capable IPsec VPNs when the mobile node is on the untrusted
   network.  The mobile node uses the tunnel inner address (TIA) given
   out by the IPsec VPN gateway as the co-located care-of address (CoA)
   for MIPv4 registration.  This eliminates the need for using an
   external MIPv4 home agent and the need for encapsulating the VPN
   tunnel inside a MIPv4 tunnel.

   The following assumptions are made for the solution described in this
   document.

   o  IKEv2 [RFC4306] and IPsec [RFC4301] are used to set up the VPN
      tunnels between the mobile node and the VPN gateway.

   o  The VPN gateway and the mobile node support MOBIKE extensions as
      defined in [RFC4555].




Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   o  When the mobile node is on the trusted network, traffic should not
      go through the DMZ.  Current deployments of firewalls and DMZs
      consider the scenario where only a small amount of the total
      enterprise traffic goes through the DMZ.  Routing through the DMZ
      typically involves stateful inspection of each packet by the
      firewalls in the DMZ.  Moreover, the DMZ architecture assumes that
      the DMZ is less secure than the internal network.  Therefore, the
      DMZ-based architecture allows the least amount of traffic to
      traverse the DMZ, that is, only traffic between the trusted
      network and the external network.  Requiring all normal traffic to
      the mobile nodes to traverse the DMZ would negate this
      architecture.

   o  When the mobile node is on the trusted network and uses a wireless
      access technology, confidentiality protection of the data traffic
      is provided by the particular access technology.  In some
      networks, confidentiality protection MAY be available between the
      mobile node and the first hop access router, in which case it is
      not required at layer 2.

   This document also presents a solution for the mobile node to detect
   when it is on a trusted network, so that the IPsec tunnel can be
   dropped and the mobile node can use Mobile IP in the intranet.

   IPsec VPN gateways that use IKEv1 [RFC2409] are not addressed in this
   document.

2.  Terminology

   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 [RFC2119].

   Many of the following terms are defined in [RFC5265], but are
   repeated here to make this document self-contained.

   FA:  Mobile IPv4 foreign agent.

   Co-CoA:  co-located care-of address.

   FA-CoA:  foreign agent care-of address.

   FW:  firewall.

   i-FA:  Mobile IPv4 foreign agent residing in the trusted (intranet)
      network.





Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   i-HA:  Mobile IPv4 home agent residing in the trusted (intranet)
      network.

   i-MIP:  The mobile node uses the home agent in the internal network.

   VPN-TIA:  VPN tunnel inner address.  This address is given out by the
      VPN gateway during IKE negotiation and is routable in the trusted
      network.

   mVPN:  VPN with MOBIKE functionality.

   The following access modes are used in explaining the protocol.  The
   access modes are explained in more detail in [RFC5265].

   f: i-MIP with FA-CoA

   c: i-MIP with Co-CoA

   mc:  i-MIP with MOBIKE-enabled VPN, with VPN-TIA as Co-CoA

3.  Solution Overview

   The mobile node is configured with a home address that remains the
   same irrespective of whether the mobile node is inside or outside the
   enterprise network.  The mobile node is also reachable at the same
   home address irrespective of its current point of attachment.  When
   the mobile node is connected to the intranet directly, it uses Mobile
   IP for internal mobility.

   When the mobile node roams and connects to an untrusted network
   outside the enterprise, it sets up a VPN tunnel to the VPN gateway.
   However, it still maintains a valid binding cache entry at the i-HA.
   It uses the VPN-TIA, allocated by the VPN gateway, as the co-located
   CoA for registration with the i-HA.  If the VPN-TIA changes or if the
   mobile node moves and connects to another VPN gateway, then it sends
   a Registration Request to the i-HA using the new co-located CoA.

   If the mobile node moves while outside the enterprise and its access
   network changes, it uses the MOBIKE protocol to update the VPN
   gateway of its current address.  The internal home agent is not aware
   of the mobile node's movement as long as the mobile node is attached
   to the same VPN gateway and the TIA remains the same.

   Figure 1 depicts the network topology assumed for the solution.  It
   also shows the possible mobile node locations and access modes.






Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


                                             {home} (MN)   [i-HA]
                                                      \     /
                                                     .-+---+-.
                                                    (         )
                                   [mVPN]            `--+----'
                                     !                  !
                                  .--+--.              [R]
                                 (  DMZ  )              !
           .-+-------+--.         `--+--'         .-----+------.
          (              )           !           (              )
          ( external net +---[R]----[FW]----[R]--+ internal net )
          (              )                       (              )
           `--+---------'                         `---+---+----'
             /                                       /     \
   [DHCP]  [R]                              [DHCP] [R]     [R]    [i-FA]
      \    /                                   \   /         \    /
      .+--+---.                               .-+-+--.     .--+--+-.
     (         )                             (        )   (         )
      `---+---'                               `--+---'     `---+---'
          !                                      !             !
         (MN) {mc}                             (MN) {c}      (MN) {f}

             Figure 1: Network Topology Using MIPv4 and MOBIKE

   The solution described above results in a Mobile IP tunnel inside an
   IPsec tunnel.  The Mobile IP tunnel is between the mobile node and
   the home agent, and the IPsec tunnel is between the mobile node (MN)
   and the mVPN gateway.  The mobile node MUST reverse tunnel through
   the home agent [RFC3024] when the Mobile IP tunnel is inside an IPsec
   tunnel.

   The overhead of running a Mobile IP tunnel inside an IPsec tunnel can
   be avoided by having the Mobile IP foreign agent functionality on the
   VPN gateway.  This is out of scope for this document and is further
   described in [MEGHANA].

   Whenever the mobile node attaches to a new link, it may encounter a
   foreign agent.  The mobile node MUST not use the foreign agent
   care-of address with the i-HA when attached to an untrusted access
   network.  The default behavior for the mobile node is to always
   configure an address from the access link using DHCP.  The mobile
   node then checks if it is attached to a trusted access network by
   sending a Registration Request to the i-HA in the co-located care-of
   address mode.  If the mobile node discovers that it is attached to a
   trusted access network, then it MAY start using a foreign agent
   care-of address with the i-HA.  In order to do this, the mobile node
   has to perform a new registration with the i-HA.




Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   The mobile node can use a foreign agent on a untrusted access
   network, if there is an external home agent that the mobile node is
   able to use.  The use of an external home agent in the untrusted
   access network and a home agent in the trusted access network at the
   same time is described in detail in [RFC5265].

   Some IPsec VPN implementations allow a host to send traffic directly
   to the Internet when attached to an untrusted network.  This traffic
   bypasses the IPsec tunnel with the VPN gateway.  This document does
   not prevent such traffic from being sent out from the host, but there
   will be no mobility or session continuity for the traffic.  Any data
   traffic that is sent through the Mobile IP tunnel with the home agent
   is always sent through the VPN gateway.

3.1.  Access Modes

   The following access modes are used in the solution described in this
   document.

3.1.1.  Access Mode: 'c'

   This access mode is standard Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] with a co-located
   care-of address.  The mobile node must detect that it is connected to
   an internal trusted network before using this mode.  The co-located
   care-of address is assigned by the access network to which the mobile
   node is attached.

3.1.2.  Access Mode: 'f'

   This access mode is standard Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] with a foreign
   agent care-of address.  The mobile node can use this mode only when
   it detects that it is connected to an internal trusted network and
   also detects a foreign agent on the access network.

3.1.3.  Access Mode: 'mc'

   This access mode involves using both Mobile IPv4 and a MOBIKE-enabled
   IPsec VPN gateway, resulting in a Mobile IP tunnel inside an IPsec
   tunnel.  The mobile node uses the VPN-TIA as the co-located CoA for
   registering with the home agent.  This mode is used only when the
   mobile node is attached to an untrusted network and is required to
   set up an IPsec tunnel with a VPN gateway to gain access to the
   trusted network.








Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


3.2.  Mobility within the Enterprise

   When the mobile node is inside the enterprise network and attached to
   the intranet, it uses Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] for subnet mobility.  The
   mobile node always configures a care-of address through DHCP on the
   access link and uses it as the co-located care-of address.  The
   mobile node MAY use a foreign agent care-of address, if a foreign
   agent is available.  However, the foreign agent care-of address is
   used only when the mobile node is attached to the trusted access
   network.  The mobile node attempts Foreign Agent discovery and CoA
   address acquisition through DHCP simultaneously in order to avoid the
   delay in discovering a foreign agent when there is no foreign agent
   available.  The mobile node maintains a valid binding cache entry at
   all times at the home agent mapping the home address to the current
   CoA.  Whenever the mobile node moves, it sends a Registration Request
   to update the binding cache entry.

   The Mobile IP signaling messages between the mobile node and the home
   agent are authenticated as described in [RFC3344].

   The mobile node maintains a valid binding cache entry at the home
   agent even when it is outside the enterprise network.

3.3.  Mobility When outside the Enterprise

   When the mobile node is attached to an untrusted network, it sets up
   an IPsec VPN tunnel with the VPN gateway to gain access to the
   enterprise network.  If the mobile node moves and its IP address
   changes, it initiates the MOBIKE protocol [RFC4555] to update the
   address on the VPN gateway.

   The mobile node maintains a binding at the home agent even when it is
   outside the enterprise network.  If the TIA changes due to the mobile
   node re-connecting to the VPN gateway or attaching to a different VPN
   gateway, the mobile node should send a Registration Request to its
   home agent to update the binding cache with the new TIA.

3.4.  Crossing Security Boundaries

   Security boundary detection is based on the reachability of the i-HA
   from the mobile node's current point of attachment.  Whenever the
   mobile node detects a change in network connectivity, it sends a
   Registration Request to the i-HA without any VPN encapsulation.  If
   the mobile node receives a Registration Reply with the Trusted
   Networks Configured (TNC) extension from the i-HA, then it assumes
   that it is on a trusted network.  The TNC extension is described in
   [RFC5265].  The mobile node MUST check that the Registration Reply is
   integrity protected using the mobile node-home agent mobility



Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   security association before concluding it is attached to a trusted
   network.  This security boundary detection is based on the mechanism
   described in [RFC5265] to detect attachment to the internal trusted
   network.  The mobile node should re-transmit the Registration Request
   if it does not receive the Registration Reply within a timeout
   period.  The number of times the mobile node should re-transmit the
   Registration Request and the timeout period for receiving the
   Registration Reply are configurable on the mobile node.

   When the mobile node is attached to an untrusted network and is using
   an IPsec VPN to the enterprise network, the ability to send a
   Registration Request to the i-HA without VPN encapsulation would
   require some interaction between the IPsec and MIPv4 modules on the
   mobile node.  This is local to the mobile node and out of scope for
   this document.

   If the mobile node has an existing VPN tunnel to its VPN gateway, it
   MUST send a MOBIKE message at the same time as the registration
   request to the i-HA whenever the IP address changes.  If the mobile
   node receives a response from the VPN gateway, but not from the i-HA,
   it assumes it is outside the enterprise network.  If it receives a
   response from the i-HA, then it assumes it is inside the enterprise
   network.

   There could also be some out-of-band mechanisms that involve
   configuring the wireless access points with some information that the
   mobile node can recognize as access points that belong to the trusted
   network in an enterprise network.  Such mechanisms are beyond the
   scope of this document.

   The mobile node should not send any normal traffic while it is trying
   to detect whether it is attached to the trusted or untrusted network.
   This is described in more detail in [RFC5265].

3.4.1.  Operation When Moving from an Untrusted Network

   When the mobile node is outside the enterprise network and attached
   to an untrusted network, it has an IPsec VPN tunnel with its mobility
   aware VPN gateway, and a valid registration with a home agent on the
   intranet with the VPN-TIA as the care-of address.

   If the mobile node moves and its IP address changes, it performs the
   following steps:

   1a.  Initiate an IKE mobility exchange to update the VPN gateway with
        the current address.  If the new network is also untrusted, this
        will be enough for setting up the connectivity.  If the new
        network is trusted, and if the VPN gateway is reachable, this



Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


        exchange will allow the mobile node to keep the VPN state alive
        while on the trusted side.  If the VPN gateway is not reachable
        from inside, then this exchange will fail.

   1b.  At the same time as step 1, send a Mobile IPv4 Registration
        Request to the internal home agent without VPN encapsulation.

    2.  If the mobile node receives a Registration Reply to the request
        sent in step 1b, then the current subnet is a trusted subnet,
        and the mobile node can communicate without VPN tunneling.  The
        mobile node MAY tear down the VPN tunnel.

3.4.2.  Operation When Moving from a Trusted Network

   When the mobile node is inside the enterprise and attached to the
   intranet, it does not use a VPN tunnel for data traffic.  It has a
   valid binding cache entry at its home agent.  If the VPN gateway is
   reachable from the trusted network, the mobile node MAY have valid
   IKEv2 security associations with its VPN gateway.  The IPsec security
   associations can be created when required.  The mobile node may have
   to re-negotiate the IKEv2 security associations to prevent them from
   expiring.

   If the mobile node moves and its IP address changes, it performs the
   following steps:

   1.  Initiate an IKE mobility exchange to update the VPN gateway with
       the current address, or if there is no VPN connection, then
       establish a VPN tunnel with the gateway from the new local IP
       address.  If the new network is trusted, and if the VPN gateway
       is reachable, this exchange will allow the mobile node to keep
       the VPN state alive, while in the trusted side.  If the new
       network is trusted and if the VPN gateway is not reachable from
       inside, then this exchange will fail.

   2.  At the same time as step 1, send a Mobile IPv4 Registration
       Request to the internal home agent without VPN encapsulation.

   3.  If the mobile node receives a Registration Reply to the request
       sent in step 2, then the current subnet is a trusted subnet, and
       the mobile node can communicate without VPN tunneling, using only
       Mobile IP with the new care-of address.

   4.  If the mobile node didn't receive the response in step 3, and if
       the VPN tunnel is successfully established and registered in step
       1, then the mobile node sends a Registration Request over the VPN
       tunnel to the internal home agent.  After receiving a
       Registration Reply from the home agent, the mobile node can start



Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


       communicating over the VPN tunnel with the Mobile IP home
       address.

4.  NAT Traversal

   There could be a Network Address Translation (NAT) device between the
   mobile node and the home agent in any of the access modes, 'c', 'f',
   and 'mc', and between the mobile node and the VPN gateway in the
   access mode 'mc'.  Mobile IPv4 NAT traversal, as described in
   [RFC3519], should be used by the mobile node and the home agent in
   access modes 'c' or 'f', when there is a NAT device present.  When
   using access mode, 'mc', IPsec NAT traversal [RFC3947] [RFC3948]
   should be used by the mobile node and the VPN gateway, if there is a
   NAT device present.  Typically, the TIA would be a routable address
   inside the enterprise network.  But in some cases, the TIA could be
   from a private address space associated with the VPN gateway.  In
   such a case, Mobile IPv4 NAT traversal should be used in addition to
   IPsec NAT traversal in the 'mc' mode.

5.  Security Considerations

   Enterprise connectivity typically requires very strong security, and
   the solution described in this document was designed keeping this in
   mind.

   Security concerns related to the mobile node detecting that it is on
   a trusted network and thereafter dropping the VPN tunnel are
   described in [RFC5265].

   When the mobile node sends a Registration Request to the i-HA from an
   untrusted network that does not go through the IPsec tunnel, it will
   reveal the i-HA's address, its own identity including the NAI and the
   home address, and the Authenticator value in the authentication
   extensions to the untrusted network.  This may be a concern in some
   deployments.

   Please see [RFC4555] for MOBIKE-related security considerations, and
   [RFC3519], [RFC3947] for security concerns related to the use of NAT
   traversal mechanisms for Mobile IPv4 and IPsec.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Henry Haverinen, Sandro Grech, Dhaval
   Shah, and John Cruz for their participation in developing this
   solution.






Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   The authors would also like to thank Henrik Levkowetz, Jari Arkko, TJ
   Kniveton, Vidya Narayanan, Yaron Sheffer, Hans Sjostrand, Jouni
   Korhonen, and Sami Vaarala for reviewing the document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3344]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
              August 2002.

   [RFC4555]  Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
              (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, June 2006.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC5265]  Vaarala, S. and E. Klovning, "Mobile IPv4 Traversal across
              IPsec-Based VPN Gateways", RFC 5265, June 2008.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4093]  Adrangi, F. and H. Levkowetz, "Problem Statement: Mobile
              IPv4 Traversal of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Gateways",
              RFC 4093, August 2005.

   [RFC3024]  Montenegro, G., "Reverse Tunneling for Mobile IP,
              revised", RFC 3024, January 2001.

   [MEGHANA]  Sahasrabudhe, M. and V. Devarapalli, "Optimizations to
              Secure Connectivity and Mobility", Work in Progress,
              February 2008.

   [RFC3519]  Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, "Mobile IP Traversal of
              Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices", RFC 3519,
              April 2003.

   [RFC3947]  Kivinen, T., Swander, B., Huttunen, A., and V. Volpe,
              "Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE", RFC 3947,
              January 2005.





Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   [RFC3948]  Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
              Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
              RFC 3948, January 2005.

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













































Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


Appendix A.  Applicability to a Mobile Operator Network

   The solution described in this document can also be applied to a
   Mobile Operator's network when the Operator deploys heterogeneous
   access networks and some of the access networks are considered as
   trusted networks and others as untrusted networks.  Figure 2
   illustrates such a network topology.

                                          +----------------------+
                                          |            +----+    |
                     +----------------+   |            |i-HA|    |
                     |                |   |            +----+    |
             (MN)----+    trusted     +---+                      |
                     | access network |   |   internal network   |
                     +----------------+   |                      |
                                          |                      |
                                          +----------+-----------+
                                                     |
                                                     |
                                                     |
                                                   [mVPN]
                     +----------------+              |
                     |                |              |
             (MN)----+   untrusted    +--------------+
             {mc}    | access network |
                     +----------------+

     Figure 2: Network Topology of a Mobile Operator with Trusted and
                            Untrusted Networks

   An IPsec VPN gateway provides secure connectivity to the Operator's
   internal network for mobile nodes attached to an untrusted access
   network.  The VPN gateway supports MOBIKE extensions so that the
   IPsec tunnels survive any IP address change when the mobile node
   moves while attached to the untrusted access networks.

   When the mobile node is attached to the trusted access network, it
   uses Mobile IP with the i-HA.  It uses the IP address obtained from
   the trusted access network as the co-located care-of address to
   register with the i-HA.  If a foreign agent is available in the
   trusted access network, the mobile node may use a foreign agent
   care-of address.  If the mobile node moves and attaches to an
   untrusted access network, it sets up an IPsec tunnel with the VPN
   gateway to access the Operator's internal network.  It uses the IPsec
   TIA as the co-located care-of address to register with the i-HA
   thereby creating a Mobile IP tunnel inside an IPsec tunnel.





Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


   When the mobile node is attached to the trusted access network, it
   can either be attached to a foreign link in the trusted network or to
   the home link directly.  This document does not impose any
   restrictions.

Authors' Addresses

   Vijay Devarapalli
   Wichorus
   3590 North First Street
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: vijay@wichorus.com


   Pasi Eronen
   Nokia Research Center
   P.O. Box 407
   FIN-00045 Nokia Group
   Finland

   EMail: pasi.eronen@nokia.com




























Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

RFC 5266             MIPv4 and MOBIKE interworking             June 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

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

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

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

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

   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
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.












Devarapalli & Eronen     Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/