Subject: [Pana] I-D ACTION:draft-hiko-pana-fpana-00.txt

From: Yoshihiko Kainuma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:41:03 +0900

We just submitted the following draft. It is currently available from 
http://pothos.tera.ics.keio.ac.jp/internet-draft/draft-hiko-pana-fpana-00.txt. 
Comments are welcome.

title: FPANA: combining PANA and FMIPv6 for fast authentication
       at handover (draft-hiko-pana-fpana-00.txt)

abstract:

    This document proposes a fast authentication protocol called FPANA.
    A combination of PANA (for node authentication) and FMIP (for fast
    handover), it offers fast node authentication upon intra-domain
    handover of a mobile node.  Since FPANA makes use of context transfer
    of the PANA session from the previous access router to the new access
    router by the HI message of FMIPv6, the PANA session can be set
    between the mobile node and the new access router prior to the mobile
    node moving to the new access router.  Thus, the mobile node can
    continue authenticated communication upon intra-domain fast handover.

Yoshihiko Kainuma
Keio university
meilto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:13:44 +0200

Hi all, 

 I quickly came through your i-d and I have the following comments:

 I think that requiring that PAA/AR and EP to be colocated is a strong
 requirement since we are now considering pana-multihop in the charter.
 That's one of the reason why in our proposal (based on CxTP) the
 transfer occur between PAAs. (cf. draft-bournelle-pana-ctp-03.txt for
 more info.)

 The second comments is that you directly transfer AAA-Key/AAA-Key-name
 and PANA_MAC_Key from the pAR to the nAR which is not good from a
 security perspective. (Please look at 'Security Considerations' of
 draft-ietf-pana-mobopts-00.txt and at draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-00.txt
 for more info.)

 However it looks like more or less to one of the approach that we
 considered in draft-bournelle-pana-ctp-02.txt but you use FMIPv6
 instead of CxTP (which could be combined with some efforts :-). We
 deciced to focus on inter-PAAs transfer to provide a global solution
 for PANA, else you need to define a PAA-AR interface.

 Best regards,

 Julien

-- 
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr

---

From: Yoshihiko Kainuma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:06:00 +0900

Thanks for your comment.

The goal of our draft is realization of seamless handover and AAA. So we 
select
FMIPv6 as the method of seamless handover. Our proposal is the method of 
PANA
optimization for FMIPv6.

 >security perspective.

We assumed that IPsec SA has been already established between ARs. So we 
thought
it has no problem to transfer the PANA_MAC_KEY directly.
If transferring the PANA_MAC_Key is not good, key materials like the 
AAA-Key-int
may be transferred instead of the PANA_MAC_KEY.

 >requirement since we are now considering pana-multihop in the charter.

We think it may be possible to optimization multi-hop PANA for FMIPv6. 
Following
illustration is example of optimization. "New Message1" is advertisement 
of MN's handover.
nEP can learn MN's IP address and MAC address by HI message. Then nEP can
advertise which node is going to move. We will study about multi-hop 
PANA more.

    MN                      PAR(pEP)               NAR(nEP) 
                   PAA
      |                                |                                
|                                |
      |--------FBU------->|                                
|                                |
      |                                
|---------HI-------->|                                |
      |                                |                                
|--New Message1-->|
      |                                |                                
|                                |
      |                                |                                
|<-New Message2---|
      |                                
|<------Hack--------|                                |
      |<------FBack-------|                                
|                                |
      |                                |                                
|                                |

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:02:53 +0200

Hi,

> FMIPv6 as the method of seamless handover. Our proposal is the method of 

 I understood this.

> may be transferred instead of the PANA_MAC_KEY.

 the problem is not about the pAR-nAR channel. 
 Transferring the AAA-Key-int can also be a problem. This point needs
 to be clarify.

> advertise which node is going to move. We will study about multi-hop 

 Could you reformat your scheme ? thanks

 regards,

---

From: Yoshihiko Kainuma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:01:42 +0900

Hi,

 >the problem is not about the pAR-nAR channel. Transferring the 
AAA-Key-int
 >can also be a problem. This point needs to be clarify.

Do you mean that transferring any parameters can be a problem?
Are there any discussions pros and cons of transferring any parameters?
Would you tell us where did such discussions have?

 >Could you reformat your scheme ?

Sorry, I reformatted our scheme.
"New Message1" is advertisement of MN's handover. nEP can learn MN's IP 
address and MAC
address by HI message. Then nEP can advertise which node is going to move.

   MN              PAR(pEP)           NAR(nEP)             PAA
    |                 |                  |                  |
    |-------FBU------>|                  |                  |
    |                 |--------HI------->|                  |
    |                 |                  |---New Message1-->|
    |                 |                  |                  |
    |                 |                  |<--New Message2---|
    |                 |<------Hack-------|                  |
    |<-----FBack------|                  |                  |
    |                 |                  |                  |

Yoshihiko Kainuma
Keio university

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:36:58 +0200

Hi yoshihiko,

> Would you tell us where did such discussions have?

 the problem is tied to key transfer. The problem is that if the
 attacker compromise the pAR/PAA, even if the PaC moves the attacker
 continues to know the key shared between the PaC and the nAR/PAA.

 Such discussions occured in mobopts/mipshop and pana ML. 
 
> address by HI message. Then nEP can advertise which node is going to move.

 ok but in this case, you don't transfer PANA context.

 regards,

---

From: Yoshihiko Kainuma <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:34:39 +0900

Hi julien,

 > the problem is tied to key transfer. The problem is that if the 
attacker compromise the
 >pAR/PAA, even if the PaC moves the attacker continues to know the key 
shared between
 >the PaC and the nAR/PAA

I want to know what security model do you think.
How do you think about reliability of agents?

 >ok but in this case, you don't transfer PANA context.

What we want to realize is not Context Transfer but fast-phandover and AAA.
In the case of multi-hop PANA, MN's correspondent PAA won''t change 
before and after
MN's intra-domain handover as shown in following figure.

 PaC ------- pEP(AP) ------- AR ---------PAA
                                          |
                                          |
             nEP(AP)---------AR ----------+

In this case, I think that no PANA context need to be transferred.

---

From: Suraj Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:21:39 +0530

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yoshihiko Kainuma" <[email-masked]>
To: "Julien Bournelle" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Pana] I-D ACTION:draft-hiko-pana-fpana-00.txt

> In the case of multi-hop PANA, MN's correspondent PAA won''t change before 
> and after
What about MN's inter-domain handover (inter PAA handover) in case of 
multi-hop PANA.

PaC ------- pEP(AP) ------- AR ---------PAA
                                              |
                                              |
                  nEP(AP)---------AR ----------PAA

Does draft cover the above  scenario?

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:00:13 +0200

Hi,

> How do you think about reliability of agents?

 A PAA could be compromised.
> In this case, I think that no PANA context need to be transferred.

 sure