2.7.8 IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming (mobike)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 65th IETF Meeting in Dallas, TX USA. It may now be out-of-date.
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
Additional MOBIKE Web Page
Last Modified: 2006-02-15
Paul Hoffman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jari Arkko <email@example.com>
Security Area Director(s):
Russ Housley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sam Hartman <email@example.com>
Security Area Advisor:
Russ Housley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Pasi Eronen <email@example.com>
General Discussion: firstname.lastname@example.org
To Subscribe: https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
Description of Working Group:
The IKE Mobility working group will focus on the extensions to the
IKEv2 protocol required to enable its use in the context where there
are multiple IP addresses per host (multihoming, SCTP) or where the IP
addresses changes in the control of the IPsec host (mobility and
The main scenario is making it possible for a VPN user to move from
one address to another without re-establishing all security
associations, or to use multiple interfaces simultaenously, such as
where WLAN and GPRS are used simultaneously. It is also intended that
the extensions produced by the WG would address specific needs related
to other work in IETF, such as modification of SCTP end points without
renegotiation of the security associations or the movement of
IKEv2-based secure connections to enable Mobile IP signaling to take
An explicit non-goal is the construction of a fully fledged mobility
protocol. In particular, the WG shall NOT develop mechanisms for the
o Hiding of mobility from transport layer protocols or applications
(beyond what already exists through the use of the tunnel mode). In
this respect MOBIKE is different from Mobile IP, HIP, and other
o IP address changes done by third parties (NATs, firewalls etc). In
particular, MOBIKE shall not replace or modify IKEv2 NAT traversal
function. MOBIKE handles IP address changes initiated by one of the
endpoints of the security associations. NAT traversal handles other
address changes. MOBIKE should not be tightly coupled with the NAT
traversal function, but it is necessary to specify in which cases
(if any) they can be used together, and how they interact.
o Opportunistic authentication or other tools for the reduction of
configuration effort. The mechanisms specified in this WG are to be
designed for the traditional VPN use case only.
o Any optimization of packet routing paths due to mobility.
o Load balancing. Multihoming is supported only in the sense of
failing over to another interface; sending traffic over multiple
addresses using the same SA is not supported.
o Use of IKEv1.
The goals of the MOBIKE working group are to address the
(1) IKEv2 mobile IP support for IKE SAs. Support for changing and
authenticating the IKE SA endpoints IP addresses as requested by
(2) Updating IPsec SA gateway addresses. Support for changing the IP
address associated to the tunnel mode IPsec SAs already in
place, so that further traffic is sent to the new gateway
(3) Multihoming support for IKEv2. Support for multiple IP addresses
for IKEv2 SAs, and IPsec SAs created by the IKEv2. This should
also include support for the multiple IP address for SCTP
transport. This should also work together with the first two
items, i.e those addresses should be able to be updated too.
(4) Verification of changed or added IP addresses. Provide way to
verify IP address either using static information, information
from certificates, or through the use of a return routability
(5) Reduction of header overhead involved with mobility-related
tunnels. This is a performance requirement in wireless
(6) Specification of PFKEY extensions to support the IPsec SA
movements and tunnel overhead reduction.
Goals and Milestones:
|Done|| ||Publish first draft on 'IKEv2 Address Update', covering issues
1 to 4 from the above list |
|Done|| ||Submit IKEv2 Address Update document to IESG for Proposed
Standard RFC |
|Jan 2006|| ||Submit Reduced Tunnel Overhead Mode for IPsec to IESG
forInformational RFC |
|Jan 2006|| ||Publish first draft on 'PFKEY Extension for Address Updates'
(issue 6 above) |
|May 2006|| ||Publish first draft on 'Reduced Tunnel Overhead Mode for IPsec'
(issue 5 above) |
|May 2006|| ||Submit PFKEY Extension for Address Updates document to IESG for
Informational RFC |
No Request For Comments
Agenda and so on
A Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode