Protecting Home Agent Client from IPv6 Routing Header Vulnerability in Mixed IP Networks

Authors

  • Bassam Naji Al-Tamimi Taibah University, Almadinah Almonawarah, Saudi Arabia
  • Mohamed Shenify Albaha Uniersity, Albaha, Saudi Arabia
  • Rahmat Budiarto Albaha Uniersity, Albaha, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2015.14.5

Keywords:

Mobile IP, IPv4/IPv6 coexistence, IPv6 security, IPv6 routing header

Abstract

Mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks will continue to use mobility support over tunneling mechanisms for a long period of time until the establishment of IPv6 end-to-end connectivity. Encapsulating IPv6 traffi c within IPv4 increases the level of hiding internal contents. Thus, mobility in mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks introduces new security vulnerabilities. One of the most critical vulnerabilities associated with the IPv6 protocol is the routing header that potentially may be used by attackers to bypass the network security devices. This paper proposes an algorithm (V6HAPA) for protecting home agent clients from the routing header vulnerability, considering that the home agents reside behind an IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT) router. The experimental results show that the V6HAPA provides enough confidence to protect the home agent clients from attackers.

 

References

Abley, J., Savola, P., & Neville-Neil, G. (2007). Deprecation of type 0 routing headers in IPv6. IETF Internet standard, RFC 5095. Retrieved from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5095.txt. Journal of ICT, 14, 2015, pp: 77–

Ahmadi, S. M. (2012). Analysis towards mobile IPv4 and mobile IPv6 in computer networks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications (IJISA), 4(4), 33-51.

Amoss, J., & Minoli, D. (2008). Handbook of IPv4 to IPv6 transition: Methodologies for institutional and corporate networks. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.

Arkko, J., Perkins, C., & Johnson, D. (2011). Mobility support in IPv6. IETF Internet standard, RFC 6275. Retrieved from http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc6275. txt.

Barker, K. (2013). The security implications of IPv6. Network Security, 6, 5-9.

Bi, J., Deng, H., Xu, M., Shi, F., & Hu, G. (2013). A General framework of source address validation and traceback for IPv4/IPv6 transition scenarios. IETF Internet standard Draft. Retrieved from http://tools. ietf.org/html/draft-xu-savi-transition-03.txt.

Biondi, P., & Ebalard, A. (2007). IPv6 routing header security. Retrieved from SECDEV website http://www.secdev.org/conf/ipv6_rh_securitycsw07.pdf.

Convery, S., & Miller, D. (2004, May). IPv6 and IPv4 threat comparison and best-practice evaluation (V1. 0). [PowerPoint slides]. Paper presented at the 17th NANOG conference. Retrieved from http://seanconvery. com/v6-v4-threats.pdf

Deering, S., & Hinden, R. ( 1998). Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. IETF Internet standard, RFC 2460. Retrieved from http://ietf.org/rfc/ rfc2460.txt.

Durdağı, E., & Buldu, A. (2010). IPv4/IPv6 Security and Threat Comparisons. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5285-5291.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Frankel, S., Graveman, R., Pearce, J., & Rooks, M. (2010). Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6. NIST Special Publication, 800(119). Retrieved from http://csrc.nist.gov/sp800-119.pdf.

Hong, L. X. (2013). The research of network transitional technology from IPv4 to IPv6. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Digital Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA), pp.1507-1509, IEEE Publisher.

Karthikeyan, V., & Prittopaul, P. (2013). A survey on vulnerability of type 0 routing header in IPv6. International Journal of Computer Science and Management Research, 2(2), 1671-1676.

Krishnan, S., Hoagland, J., & Thaler, D. (2011). Security Concerns with IP Tunneling. IETF Internet standard, RFC 6169. Retrieved from http://ietf.org/rfc/ rfc6169.txt. Journal of ICT, 14, 2015, pp: 77–

La Polla, M., Martinelli, F., & Sgandurra, D. (2013). A survey on security for mobile devices. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(1), 446-471.

Lee, K.-H., Jung, H.-K., Lee, H.-W., Lee, S.-K., & Han, Y.-H. (2013). A network-based IP mobility management scheme with IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Support. In H-K Jung et. al. (Eds.), Future Information

Communication Technology and Applications: ICFICE 2013. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (pp. 199-216), Springer.

Osareh, A., & Shadgar, B. (2008). Intrusion Detection in computer networks based on machine learning algorithms. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 8(11), 15-23.

Perkins, C. (1996). IP Mobility Support. IETF Internet standard, RFC 2002. Retrieved from http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2002.

Perkins, C. (2002). IP mobility support for IPv4. IETF Internet standard, RFC 3344. Retrieved from http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3344.

Savola, P. (2002). Security of IPv6 routing header and home address options. IETF Technical report. Retrieved from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draftsavola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-00.txt.

Shanmugaraja, P., & Chandrasekar, S. (2012). Accessible methods to mitigate security attacks on IPv4 to IPv6 transitions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 77(2), 165-173.

Taylor, M. S., Waung, W., & Banan, M. (1997). Internetwork mobility: The CDPD approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wadhwa, M., & Khari, M. (2011). Security holes in contrast to the new features emerging in the next generation protocol. International Journal of Computer Applications, 20(3), 35-39.

Zagar, D., Grgic, K., & Rimac-Drlje, S. (2007). Security aspects in IPv6 networks-implementation and testing. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 33(5-6), 425-437..

Downloads

Published

28-04-2015

Issue

Vol. 14 (2015): Journal of Information and Communication Technology (JICT) Vol. 14, 2015

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Al-Tamimi, B. N., Shenify, M., & Budiarto, R. (2015). Protecting Home Agent Client from IPv6 Routing Header Vulnerability in Mixed IP Networks. Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 14, 77-93. https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2015.14.5

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-06
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/jict2015.14.5 OpenAlex W4247267170 Scopus 85209622428

Most read articles by the same author(s)