Network Security Individual Assignment: MIPv4 and MIPv6 Comparison

This assignment solution provides a comprehensive comparison between Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) and Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocols in the context of network security. It explores the architectural differences, including the roles of Mobile Nodes (MN), Home Agents (HA), and Foreign Agents (FA), and how they handle datagram transfer. The solution highlights that MIPv4 uses home agents and tunneling for data transmission, whereas MIPv6 employs stateless auto-configuration or Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and bidirectional tunneling for optimized routing. The assignment further delves into the security aspects of both protocols, discussing the security vulnerabilities in MIPv4, such as tunnel management issues and potential for third-party attacks, and the security features of MIPv6, including the use of IPsec for authentication and encryption. It concludes that MIPv6 offers enhanced security features and advanced capabilities compared to MIPv4, making it a more secure option for mobile networks. References from various academic sources are also included to support the analysis.

Running Head: NETWORK SECURITY 0
Network Security
Individual Assignment
Student name

Network Security 1
Table of Contents
Answer – 1:..................................................................................................................................................2
Answer – 2:..................................................................................................................................................4
Answer – 3:..................................................................................................................................................7
References...................................................................................................................................................8

Network Security 2
Answer – 1:
According to Darwich, a mobile IPv4, and mobile IPv6 are having different benefits for
datagram transfer, but latency of network is high in case of MIPv4. There are some basic terms
in the mobile network, which are Mobile Node (MN), Home Agent (HA), Foreign Agent (FA),
Access Router (AR), Care-of Address (CoA), Home Address (HoA), and Return Routability
(RR). Basic architecture of mobile network is shown in below figure with all the elements.
Source: (Darwich, 2011)
Home Agent, Foreign Agent, and Mobile node are three main parts for handle mobility.
In a mobile network, a static home address is used for the connection making with the upper
layer of network, such as TCP, and care-of address is used for routing purposes (Chandavarkar &
Reddy, 2012).
A binding process between HoA and CoA, which is called home-agent registration. It
will happen, when a MN is move from one FA to another FA. Every mobile node maintains the
binding between HoA and the CoA at the HA (Chen, Hsu, & Cheng, 2014).

Network Security 3
Source: (Darwich, 2011)
Source: (Darwich, 2011)
MIPv4 get information from home agents and home agents are taking datagrams via
standard IP routing. Corresponding Node (CN) are responsible for datagram transfer. Home
agent used tunnelling for sending data to them in FA, which is attached with CoA of MN. After
that MN, send acknowledgment to the destination via IP routing (Darwich, 2011).

Network Security 4
Source: (Darwich, 2011)
In case of MIPv6 routing is change between HA, FA, and CN. They used stateless auto-
configuration or Dynamic host configuration protocol for datagram transfer between HA, FA,
and MN. In this bidirectional, tunnelling is used for datagram transfer. It is optimized the route
and make it fast and secure (Feng & Reeves, 2004).
Answer – 2:
Main two articles are considered for comparison between MIPv4, and MIPv6, which are
based on the mobility. First is ‘Comparative study of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile’ by Darwich, and
second article is ‘A Comparison between Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6’ by kivisaari.
Communication is way in which different nodes are connected using different wireless and wired
media. IPv4 and IPv6 are routing protocols, which are used for establishing connection between
two or more than two devices. TCP connection required two things for the data transfer, which
are IP address and port number of device. IETF solve this problem for mobile devices and it
provides IP address. It provides two addresses, one is home address and another is second
address, which is known as care-of address. Care –of address is used, when device switch the
network, and reconnect with new network (Henderson, 2003).

Network Security 5
Source: (Darwich, 2011)
Above figure is showing MIPv4 physical topology with IP address mapping.
Source: (Darwich, 2011)

Network Security 6
Above figure is showing MIPv6 physical topology with the help of IP address registration.
There are some security issues in mobile IPv4 as compared to mobile IPv6. There are
numerous threats for management of mobility and implication of the security protocols. A first
thing is tunnel management for datagram transfer within the protocols. There are so many ways
for a third party attack on the mobile network, when they bind or register mobile node and
redirect messages form corresponding nodes. Attackers are used denial of service attack and
remove tunnel, so that mobile user cannot connect with home agents. Sometimes they hijack
whole channel and communicate as a third party for getting information. Encryption makes it
harder for the attackers to use connection but cannot transfer messages in original form. There
are so many key exchange protocols for avoiding these types of attacks (Kivisaari, 2000).
MIPv4 uses security parameter index (SPI) for authentication. It is an integer number,
which is generated by cryptographic algorithm. SPI’s are unique and provide better
authentication between message transfers. All the information is bind in a header, such as UDP
payload, type of authentication, API, and length of header. MD-5 is used for mobile IPv4
(Munasinghe & Jamalipour, 2009).
Replay protection is also used in the mobile IPv4 for packet security. It is just like
identity of a packet. Identification of packet is necessary for security reasons. It is a random
number for packet and with the help of this packet is checked (Vaughan-Nichols, 2003).
Mobile IPv6 uses Internet Protocol Security Architecture for providing authentication and
encryption mechanism. Mobile IPv6 is also support data encryption and it is useful for the
authentication. It uses authentication header (AH) or encapsulating security payload header
(ESP) for security. Both are used for binding update of a packet and it will check at destination.
ESP provides replay protection, sender authentication, and data integrity protection. IPsec is
providing a big difference between MIPv4, and MIPv6 (Yeh, Chen, & Agrawal, 2009).

Network Security 7
Answer – 3:
It is concluded that latency of MIPv4 is better than MIPv6. Still so many issues are
present in both versions, such as security, movement detection, registration, care-of address
formation, and data delivery. MIPv4 is used as a base for MIPv6, but MIPv6 have some
advantages for the mobility, such as source routing, auto-configuration, authentication header,
and destination options. MIPv6 integrates many features form MIPv4 for better security and
authentication of packets. MIPv6 provides possibility for dynamic locations for the home agents.
It makes protocol more flexible and reduce reconfiguration at home agents. MIPv4 and MIPv6
address provide security of the protocol. MIPv4 security mechanism is handling only threats of
remote redirection attacks. MIPv6 uses IPsec for security from hackers. Therefore, the mobile
IPv6 also facilitates encryption of packets (Vaughan-Nichols, 2003).
Finally, it is concluded that MIPv6 has high security and advance features as compare to
MIPv4.

Network Security 8
References
Chandavarkar, B., & Reddy, G. (2012). Survey paper: Mobility management in heterogeneous
wireless networks. Procedia Engineering, 30(1), 113-123.
Chen, Y.‐S., Hsu, C.‐S., & Cheng, C.‐H. (2014). Network mobility protocol for vehicular ad hoc
networks. International Journal of Communication Systems, 27(11), 3042-3063.
Darwich, J. (2011). Comparative study of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6. SWEDEN: University
West.
Feng, F., & Reeves, D. (2004). Explicit proactive handoff with motion prediction for mobile IP.
WCNC, 855-860.
Henderson, T. (2003). Host mobility for IP networks: a comparison. IEEE network, 17(6), 18-26.
Kivisaari, S. (2000). A Comparison between Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6. Internet Report, 1-
10.
Munasinghe, K., & Jamalipour, A. (2009). Interworked WiMAX-3G cellular data networks: an
architecture for mobility management and performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, 8(4), 1847-1853.
O'neill, A. (2008). Patent No. 7,356,020. Washington, DC: U.S.
Vaughan-Nichols, S. (2003). Mobile IPv6 and the future of wireless Internet access. Computer,
36(2), 18-20.
Yeh, J.-H., Chen, J.-C., & Agrawal, P. (2009). Fast intra-network and cross-layer handover
(FINCH) for WiMAX and mobile internet. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing,
8(4), 558-574.