| Internet-Draft | OPsec IPv6 | April 2021 |
| Vyncke, et al. | Expires 11 October 2021 | [Page] |
Knowledge and experience on how to operate IPv4 networks securely is available: whether it is an Internet Service Provider or an enterprise internal network. However, IPv6 presents some new security challenges. RFC 4942 describes security issues in the protocol, but network managers also need a more practical, operations-minded document to enumerate advantages and/or disadvantages of certain choices.¶
This document analyzes the operational security issues associated with several types of network and proposes technical and procedural mitigation techniques. This document is only applicable to managed networks, such as enterprise networks. The recommendations in this document are not applicable to residential user cases, even in cases where a Service Provider may be managing the home gateway.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 October 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
Running an IPv6 network is new for most operators not only because they are not yet used to large-scale IPv6 networks but also because there are subtle but critical and important differences between IPv4 and IPv6, especially with respect to security. For example, all layer-2 interactions are now done using Neighbor Discovery Protocol [RFC4861] rather than using Address Resolution Protocol [RFC0826]. Also, there is no Network Address Port Translation (NAPT) defined in [RFC2663] for IPv6 even if [RFC6296] specifies a Network Prefix Translation for IPv6 (NPTv6) which is a 1-to-1 mapping of IPv6 addresses.¶
IPv6 networks are deployed using a variety of techniques, each of which have their own specific security concerns.¶
This document complements [RFC4942] by listing all security issues when operating a network (including various transition technologies). It also provides more recent operational deployment experiences where warranted.¶
This document is applicable to managed networks, i.e., when the network is operated by the user organization itself. Indeed, many of the recommended mitigation techniques must be configured with detailed knowledge of the network (which are the default routers, the switch trunk ports, etc.). This covers Service Provider (SP), enterprise networks and some knowledgeable-home-user-managed residential network. This applicability statement especially applies to Section 2.3 and Section 2.5.4.¶
IPv6 address allocations and overall architecture are an important part of securing IPv6. Initial designs, even if intended to be temporary, tend to last much longer than expected. Although initially IPv6 was thought to make renumbering easy, in practice it may be extremely difficult to renumber without a proper IP Address Management (IPAM) system. [RFC7010] introduces the mechanisms that could be utilized for IPv6 site renumbering and tries to cover most of the explicit issues and requirements associated with IPv6 renumbering.¶
A key task for a successful IPv6 deployment is to prepare an addressing plan. Because an abundance of address space is available, structuring an address plan around both services and geographic locations allow address space to become a basis for more structured security policies to permit or deny services between geographic regions. [RFC6177] documents some operational considerations of using different prefix sizes for address assignments at end sites.¶
A common question is whether companies should use Provider Independent (PI) vs. Provider Allocated (PA) space [RFC7381], but from a security perspective there is little difference. However, one aspect to keep in mind is who has administrative ownership of the address space and who is technically responsible if/when there is a need to enforce restrictions on routability of the space, e.g., due to malicious criminal activity originating from it. Relying on PA address may also increase the perceived need for NPTv6 and therefore augmenting the complexity of the operations including the security operations.¶
In [RFC7934], it is recommended that IPv6 network deployments provide multiple IPv6 addresses from each prefix to general-purpose hosts and it specifically does not recommend limiting a host to only one IPv6 address per prefix. It also recommends that the network give the host the ability to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests (for example by using SLAAC). Having by default multiple IPv6 addresses per interface is a major change compared to the unique IPv4 address per interface for hosts (secondary IPv4 addresses are not common); especially for audits (see section Section 2.6.2.3).¶
Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are intended for scenarios where interfaces are not globally reachable, despite being routed within a domain. They formally have global scope, but [RFC4193] specifies that they must be filtered at domain boundaries. ULAs are different from [RFC1918] addresses and have different use cases. One use of ULA is described in [RFC4864], another one is for internal communication stability in networks where external connectivity may come and go (e.g., some ISPs provide ULAs in home networks connected via a cable modem). It should further be kept in mind that ULA /48s from the fd00::/8 space (L=1) MUST be generated with a pseudo-random algorithm, per [RFC4193] section 3.2.1.¶
[RFC6164] in section 5.1 specifies the rationale of using /127 for inter-router point-to-point links; a /127 prevents the ping-pong attack between routers not correctly implementing [RFC4443] and also prevents a DoS attack on the neighbor cache. The previous recommendation of [RFC3627] has been obsoleted and marked Historic by [RFC6547]).¶
Some environments are also using link-local addressing for point-to-point links. While this practice could further reduce the attack surface of infrastructure devices, the operational disadvantages also need to be carefully considered; see also [RFC7404].¶
Many operators reserve a /64 block for all loopback addresses in their infrastructure and allocate a /128 out of this reserved /64 prefix for each loopback interface. This practice facilitates configuration of Access Control List (ACL) rules to enforce a security policy for those loopback addresses.¶
When considering how to assign stable addresses for nodes (either by static configuration or by pre-provisioned DHCPv6 lease Section 2.1.6), it is necessary to take into consideration the effectiveness of perimeter security in a given environment.¶
There is a trade-off between ease of operation (where some portions of the IPv6 address could be easily recognizable for operational debugging and troubleshooting) versus the risk of trivial scanning used for reconnaissance. [SCANNING] shows that there are scientifically based mechanisms that make scanning for IPv6 reachable nodes more feasible than expected; see also [RFC7707].¶
Stable addresses also allow easy enforcement of a security policy at the perimeter based on IPv6 addresses. [RFC8520] is a mechanism where the perimeter defense can retrieve security policy template based on the type of internal device.¶
The use of well-known IPv6 addresses (such as ff02::1 for all link-local nodes) or the use of commonly repeated addresses could make it easy to figure out which devices are name servers, routers, or other critical devices; even a simple traceroute will expose most of the routers on a path. There are many scanning techniques possible and operators should not rely on the 'impossible to find because my address is random' paradigm (a.k.a. "security by obscurity"), even if it is common practice to have the stable addresses randomly distributed across /64 subnets and to always use DNS (as IPv6 addresses are hard for human brains to remember).¶
While in some environments obfuscating addresses could be considered an added benefit, it does not preclude enforcement of perimeter rules and that stable addresses follow some logical allocation scheme for ease of operation (as simplicity always helps security).¶
Typical deployments will have a mix of stable and non-stable addresses; the stable addresses being either predictable (e.g., ::25 for a mail server) or obfuscated (i.e., appearing as a random 64-bit number).¶
Historically, stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) makes up the globally unique IPv6 address based on an automatically generated 64-bit interface identifier (IID) based on the EUI-64 MAC address combined with the /64 prefix (received in the Prefix Information Option (PIO) of the Router Advertisement (RA)). The EUI-64 address is generated from the stable 48-bit MAC address and does not change even if the host moves to another network; this is of course bad for privacy as a host can be traced from network (home) to network (office or Wi-Fi in hotels). [RFC8064] recommends against the use of EUI-64 addresses; and it must be noted that most host operating systems do not use EUI-64 addresses anymore and rely on either [RFC8981] or [RFC8064].¶
Randomly generating an interface ID, as described in [RFC8981], is part of SLAAC with so-called privacy extension addresses and is used to address some privacy concerns. Privacy extension addresses, a.k.a., temporary addresses may help to mitigate the correlation of activities of a node within the same network and may also reduce the attack exposure window. But using [RFC8981] privacy extension addresses might prevent the operator from building host specific access control lists (ACLs). The [RFC8981] privacy extension addresses could also be used to obfuscate some malevolent activities and specific user attribution/accountability procedures should be put in place as described in Section 2.6.¶
[RFC8064] combined with the address generation mechanism of [RFC7217] specifies another way to generate an address while still keeping the same IID for each network prefix; this allows SLAAC nodes to always have the same stable IPv6 address on a specific network while having different IPv6 addresses on different networks.¶
In some specific use cases where user accountability is more important than user privacy, network operators may consider disabling SLAAC and relying only on DHCPv6; but not all operating systems support DHCPv6 so some hosts will not get any IPv6 connectivity. Disabling SLAAC and privacy extension addresses can be done for most operating systems by sending RA messages with a hint to get addresses via DHCPv6 by setting the M-bit but also disabling SLAAC by resetting all A-bits in all prefix information options. However, attackers could still find ways to bypass this mechanism if not enforced at the switch/router level.¶
However, in scenarios where anonymity is a strong desire (protecting user privacy is more important than user attribution), privacy extension addresses should be used. When [RFC8064] is available, the stable privacy address is probably a good balance between privacy (among different networks) and security/user attribution (within a network).¶
Some environments use DHCPv6 to provision addresses and other parameters in order to ensure auditability and traceability (see Section 2.6.1.5 for the limitations of DHCPv6 for auditability).¶
A main security concern is the ability to detect and counteract rogue DHCP servers (Section 2.3.3). It must be noted that as opposed to DHCPv4, DHCPv6 can lease several IPv6 addresses per client. For DHCPv4, the lease is bound to the 'client identifier', which may contain a hardware address, or it may contain another type of identifier, such as a DNS name. For DHCPv6, the lease is bound to the client DHCP Unique ID (DUID), which may, or may not, be bound to the client link-layer address. [RFC7824] describes the privacy issues associated with the use of DHCPv6 by Internet users. The anonymity profiles [RFC7844] are designed for clients that wish to remain anonymous to the visited network. [RFC7707] recommends that DHCPv6 servers issue addresses randomly from a large pool.¶
While there are no fundamental differences with IPv4 and IPv6 DNS security concerns, there are specific considerations in DNS64 [RFC6147] environments that need to be understood. Specifically, the interactions and the potential of interference with DNSSEC ([RFC4033]) implementation need to be understood - these are pointed out in more detail in Section 2.7.3.2.¶
An interesting approach is using a /64 per host as proposed in [RFC8273] especially in a shared environment. This allows for easier user attribution (typically based on the host MAC address) as its /64 prefix is stable even if applications within the host can change their IPv6 address within this /64 prefix.¶
This can also be useful for the generation of ACLs once individual systems (e.g. admin workstations) have their own prefixes.¶
Beside the security aspects of IPv6 addresses, there are also privacy considerations: mainly because they are of global scope and visible globally. [RFC7721] goes into more detail on the privacy considerations for IPv6 addresses by comparing the manually configured IPv6 address, DHCPv6, and SLAAC.¶
Extension headers are an important difference between IPv4 and IPv6. In IPv4-based packets, it's trivial to find the upper-layer protocol type and protocol header, while in IPv6 it is more complex since the extension header chain must be parsed completely (even if not processed) in order to find the upper-layer protocol header. IANA has closed the existing empty "Next Header Types" registry to new entries and is redirecting its users to a new "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry per [RFC7045].¶
Extension headers have also become a very controversial topic since forwarding nodes that discard packets containing extension headers are known to cause connectivity failures and deployment problems [RFC7872]. Understanding the role of various extension headers is important and this section enumerates the ones that need careful consideration.¶
A clarification on how intermediate nodes should handle packets with existing or future extension headers is found in [RFC7045]. The uniform TLV format to be used for defining future extension headers is described in [RFC6564]. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8504] provide more information on the processing of extension headers by IPv6 nodes.¶
Vendors of filtering solutions and operations personnel responsible for implementing packet filtering rules should be aware that the 'Next Header' field in an IPv6 header can both point to an IPv6 extension header or to an upper layer protocol header. This has to be considered when designing the user interface of filtering solutions or during the creation of filtering rule sets.¶
There is IETF work in progress regarding filtering rules for those extension headers: [I-D.ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering] for transit routers.¶
While [RFC8200] recommends the order and the maximum repetition of extension headers, there are still IPv6 implementations, at the time of writing, which support a non-recommended order of headers (such as ESP before routing) or an illegal repetition of headers (such as multiple routing headers). The same applies for options contained in the extension headers (see [I-D.kampanakis-6man-ipv6-eh-parsing]). In some cases, it has led to nodes crashing when receiving or forwarding wrongly formatted packets.¶
A firewall or edge device should be used to enforce the recommended order and the maximum occurrences of extension headers.¶
In the previous IPv6 specification [RFC2460], the hop-by-hop options header, when present in an IPv6 packet, forced all nodes to inspect and possibly process this header. This enabled denial-of-service attacks as most, if not all, routers cannot process this type of packet in hardware but have to process these packets in software and hence compete with other software tasks, such as handling the control and management plane processing.¶
Section 4.3 of the current Internet Standard for IPv6, [RFC8200], has taken this attack vector into account and made the processing of hop-by-hop options headers by intermediate routers explicitly configurable.¶
The fragment header is used by the source (and only the source) when it has to fragment packets. [RFC7112] and section 4.5 of [RFC8200] explain why it is important that:¶
If those requirements are not met, stateless filtering could be bypassed by a hostile party. [RFC6980] applies a stricter rule to Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) by enforcing the drop of fragmented NDP packets. [RFC7113] describes how the RA-guard function described in [RFC6105] should behave in the presence of fragmented RA packets.¶
The IPsec [RFC4301] [RFC4301] extension headers (AH [RFC4302] and ESP [RFC4303]) are required if IPsec is to be utilized for network level security. But IPsec is no longer required for normal IPv6 nodes: in the updated IPv6 Nodes Requirement standard [RFC8504], IPsec is a 'SHOULD' and not a 'MUST' implement.¶
IPv6 relies heavily on NDP [RFC4861] to perform a variety of link operations such as discovering other nodes on the link, resolving their link-layer addresses, and finding routers on the link. If not secured, NDP is vulnerable to various attacks, such as router/neighbor message spoofing, redirect attacks, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) DoS attacks, etc. Many of these security threats to NDP have been documented in IPv6 ND Trust Models and Threats [RFC3756] and in [RFC6583].¶
Most of the issues are only applicable when the attacker is on the same link but NDP also has security issues when the attacker is off-link, see the section below Section 2.3.1.¶
NDP can be vulnerable to remote denial of service (DoS) attacks; for example, when a router is forced to perform address resolution for a large number of unassigned addresses, i.e., a neighbor cache exhaustion attack. This can keep new devices from joining the network or render the last-hop router ineffective due to high CPU usage. Easy mitigative steps include rate-limiting Neighbor Solicitations, restricting the amount of state reserved for unresolved solicitations, and clever cache/timer management.¶
[RFC6583] discusses the potential for off-link DoS in detail and suggests implementation improvements and operational mitigation techniques that may be used to mitigate or alleviate the impact of such attacks. Here are some feasible mitigation options that can be employed by network operators today:¶
Router Advertisement spoofing is a well-known on-link attack vector and has been extensively documented. The presence of rogue RAs, either unintentional or malicious, can cause partial or complete failure of operation of hosts on an IPv6 link. For example, a node can select an incorrect router address which can then be used for an on-path attack or the node can assume wrong prefixes to be used for SLAAC. [RFC6104] summarizes the scenarios in which rogue RAs may be observed and presents a list of possible solutions to the problem. [RFC6105] (RA-Guard) describes a solution framework for the rogue RA problem where network segments are designed around switching devices that are capable of identifying invalid RAs and blocking them before the attack packets actually reach the target nodes.¶
However, several evasion techniques that circumvent the protection provided by RA-Guard have surfaced. A key challenge to this mitigation technique is introduced by IPv6 fragmentation. Attackers can conceal their attack by fragmenting their packets into multiple fragments such that the switching device that is responsible for blocking invalid RAs cannot find all the necessary information to perform packet filtering of the same packet. [RFC7113] describes such evasion techniques and provides advice to RA-Guard implementers such that the aforementioned evasion vectors can be eliminated.¶
Given that the IPv6 Fragmentation Header can be leveraged to circumvent some implementations of RA-Guard, [RFC6980] updates [RFC4861] such that use of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header is forbidden in all Neighbor Discovery messages except "Certification Path Advertisement", thus allowing for simple and effective measures to counter fragmented NDP attacks.¶
The Source Address Validation Improvements (SAVI) working group has worked on other ways to mitigate the effects of such attacks. [RFC7513] helps in creating bindings between a DHCPv4 [RFC2131] /DHCPv6 [RFC8415] assigned source IP address and a binding anchor [RFC7039] on a SAVI device. Also, [RFC6620] describes how to glean similar bindings when DHCP is not used. The bindings can be used to filter packets generated on the local link with forged source IP addresses.¶
Isolating hosts for the NDP traffic can be done by using a /64 per host, refer to Section 2.1.7, as NDP is only relevant within a /64 on-link prefix; 3GPP Section 2.3.4 uses a similar mechanism.¶
A more drastic technique to prevent all NDP attacks is based on isolation of all hosts with specific configurations. Hosts (i.e., all nodes that are not routers) are unable to send data-link layer frames to other hosts, therefore, no host-to-host attacks can happen. This specific setup can be established on some switches or Wi-Fi access points. This is not always feasible when hosts need to communicate with other hosts in the same subnet, e.g., for access to file shares.¶
It is still recommended that RA-Guard and SAVI be employed as a first line of defense against common attack vectors including misconfigured hosts. This recommendation also applies when DHCPv6 is used as RA messages are used to discover the default router(s) and for on-link prefix determination. This line of defense is most effective when incomplete fragments are dropped by routers and switches as described in Section 2.2.3. The generated log should also be analyzed to identify and act on violations. Network operators should be aware that RA-Guard and SAVI do not work or could even be harmful in specific network configurations (notably when there could be multiple routers).¶
Enabling RA-Guard by default in Wi-Fi networks or enterprise campus networks should be strongly considered unless specific use cases such as the presence of devices Homenet devices emitting router advertisements preclude this.¶
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6), as described in [RFC8415], enables DHCP servers to pass configuration parameters such as IPv6 network addresses and other configuration information to IPv6 nodes such as a recursive DNS server. DHCP plays an important role in most large networks by providing robust stateful configuration in the context of automated system provisioning.¶
The two most common threats to DHCP clients come from malicious (a.k.a., rogue) or unintentionally misconfigured DHCP servers. A malicious DHCP server is established with the intent of providing incorrect configuration information to the clients to cause a denial-of-service attack or to mount on path attack. While unintentional, a misconfigured DHCP server can have the same impact. Additional threats against DHCP are discussed in the security considerations section of [RFC8415].¶
DHCPv6-Shield, [RFC7610], specifies a mechanism for protecting connected DHCPv6 clients against rogue DHCPv6 servers. This mechanism is based on DHCPv6 packet-filtering at the layer-2 device, i.e., the administrator specifies the interfaces connected to DHCPv6 servers. However, extension headers could be leveraged to bypass DHCPv6-Shield unless [RFC7112] is enforced.¶
It is recommended to use DHCPv6-Shield and to analyze the corresponding log messages.¶
The 3GPP link is a point-to-point like link that has no link-layer address. This implies there can only be an end host (the mobile hand-set) and the first-hop router (i.e., a GPRS Gateway Support Node (GGSN) or a Packet Gateway (PGW)) on that link. The GGSN/PGW never configures a non link-local address on the link using the advertised /64 prefix on it; see Section 2.1.7. The advertised prefix must not be used for on-link determination. There is no need for address resolution on the 3GPP link, since there are no link-layer addresses. Furthermore, the GGSN/PGW assigns a prefix that is unique within each 3GPP link that uses IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration. This avoids the necessity to perform DAD at the network level for every address generated by the mobile host. The GGSN/PGW always provides an IID to the cellular host for the purpose of configuring the link-local address and ensures the uniqueness of the IID on the link (i.e., no collisions between its own link-local address and the mobile host's address).¶
The 3GPP link model itself mitigates most of the known NDP-related Denial-of-Service attacks. In practice, the GGSN/PGW only needs to route all traffic to the mobile host that falls under the prefix assigned to it. As there is also a single host on the 3GPP link, there is no need to defend that IPv6 address.¶
See Section 5 of [RFC6459] for a more detailed discussion on the 3GPP link model, NDP on it and the address configuration details. In some mobile networks, DHCPv6 and DHCP-PD are also used.¶
IPv6 uses multicast extensively for signaling messages on the local link to avoid broadcast messages for on-the-wire efficiency.¶
The use of multicast has some side effects on wireless networks, such as a negative impact on battery life of smartphones and other battery-operated devices that are connected to such networks. [RFC7772], [RFC6775] (for specific wireless networks) discuss methods to rate-limit RAs and other ND messages on wireless networks in order to address this issue.¶
The use of link-layer multicast addresses (e.g., ff02::1 for the all nodes link-local multicast address) could also be misused for an amplification attack. Imagine, a hostile node sending an ICMPv6 ECHO_REQUEST to ff02::1 with a spoofed source address, then, all link-local nodes will reply with ICMPv6 ECHO_REPLY packets to the source address. This could be a DoS attack for the address owner. This attack is purely local to the layer-2 network as packets with a link-local destination are never forwarded by an IPv6 router.¶
This is the reason why large Wi-Fi network deployments limit the use of link-layer multicast either from or to the uplink of the Wi-Fi access point, i.e., Wi-Fi stations cannot send link-local multicast to their direct neighboring Wi-Fi stations.¶
SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SeND), as described in [RFC3971], is a mechanism that was designed to secure ND messages. This approach involves the use of new NDP options to carry public key-based signatures. Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA), as described in [RFC3972], are used to ensure that the sender of a Neighbor Discovery message is the actual "owner" of the claimed IPv6 address. A new NDP option, the CGA option, was introduced and is used to carry the public key and associated parameters. Another NDP option, the RSA Signature option, is used to protect all messages relating to neighbor and Router discovery.¶
SeND protects against:¶
SeND does NOT:¶
However, at this time and over a decade since their original specifications, CGA and SeND do not have support from widely deployed IPv6 devices; hence, their usefulness is limited and should not be relied upon.¶
[RFC6192] defines the router control plane and provides detailed guidance to secure it for IPv4 and IPv6 networks. This definition is repeated here for the reader's convenience. Please note that the definition is completely protocol-version agnostic (most of this section applies to IPv6 in the same way as to IPv4).¶
Preamble: IPv6 control plane security is vastly congruent with its IPv4 equivalent with the exception of OSPFv3 authentication (Section 2.4.1) and some packet exceptions (see Section 2.4.3) that are specific to IPv6.¶
Modern router architecture design maintains a strict separation of forwarding and router control plane hardware and software. The router control plane supports routing and management functions. It is generally described as the router architecture hardware and software components for handling packets destined to the device itself, as well as, building and sending packets originated locally on the device. The forwarding plane is typically described as the router architecture hardware and software components responsible for receiving a packet on an incoming interface, performing a lookup to identify the packet's IP next hop and best outgoing interface towards the destination, and forwarding the packet through the appropriate outgoing interface.¶
While the forwarding plane is usually implemented in high-speed hardware, the control plane is implemented by a generic processor (referred to as the route processor (RP)) and cannot process packets at a high rate. Hence, this processor can be attacked by flooding its input queue with more packets than it can process. The control plane processor is then unable to process valid control packets and the router can lose OSPF or BGP adjacencies which can cause a severe network disruption.¶
[RFC6192] provides detailed guidance to protect the router control plane in IPv6 networks. The rest of this section contains simplified guidance.¶
The mitigation techniques are:¶
This section will consider several classes of control packets:¶
This class includes OSPFv3, BGP, NDP, ICMP.¶
An ingress ACL to be applied on all the router interfaces for packets to be processed by the RP should be configured to:¶
Note: dropping OSPFv3 packets which are authenticated by IPsec could be impossible on some routers that are unable to parse the IPsec ESP or AH extension headers during ACL classification.¶
Rate-limiting of the valid packets should be done, see also [RFC8541] for a side benefit for OSPv3. The exact configuration will depend on the available resources of the router (CPU, TCAM, ...).¶
This class includes: SSH, SNMP, RESTCONF, NETCONF, gRPC, syslog, NTP, etc.¶
An ingress ACL to be applied on all the router interfaces (or at ingress interfaces of the security perimeter or by using specific features of the platform) should be configured for packets destined to the RP such as:¶
Rate-limiting of valid packets should be done. The exact configuration will depend on the available router resources.¶
This class covers multiple cases where a data plane packet is punted to the route processor because it requires specific processing:¶
On some routers, not everything can be done by the specialized data plane hardware which requires some packets to be 'punted' to the generic RP. This could include for example the processing of a long extension header chain in order to apply an ACL based on layer-4 information. [RFC6980] and more generally [RFC7112] highlight the security implications of oversized extension header chains on routers and updates the original IPv6 specifications, [RFC2460], such that the first fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header chain. Those changes are incorporated in the IPv6 standard [RFC8200]¶
An ingress ACL cannot mitigate a control plane attack using these packet exceptions. The only protection for the RP is to rate-limit those packet exceptions that are forwarded to the RP, this means that some data plane packets will be dropped without an ICMP message sent to the source which may delay Path MTU discovery and cause drops.¶
In addition to limiting the rate of data plane packets queued to the RP, it is also important to rate-limit the generation of ICMP messages. This is important both to preserve RP resources and also to prevent an amplification attack using the router as a reflector. It is worth noting that some platforms implement this rate-limiting in hardware. Of course, a consequence of not generating an ICMP message will break some IPv6 mechanisms such as Path MTU discovery or a simple traceroute.¶
Preamble: IPv6 routing security is congruent with IPv4 routing security with the exception of OSPv3 neighbor authentication (see Section 2.5.2).¶
Routing security in general can be broadly divided into three sections:¶
[RFC5082] is also applicable to IPv6 and can ensure that routing protocol packets are coming from the local network; it must also be noted that in IPv6 all interior gateway protocols use link-local addresses.¶
As for IPv4, it is recommended to enable a routing protocol only on interfaces where it is required.¶
As BGP is identical for IPv4 and IPv6 and as [RFC7454] covers all the security aspects for BGP in detail, [RFC7454] is also applicable to IPv6.¶
OSPFv3 can rely on IPsec to fulfill the authentication function. However, it should be noted that IPsec support is not standard on all routing platforms. In some cases, this requires specialized hardware that offloads crypto over to dedicated ASICs or enhanced software images (both of which often come with added financial cost) to provide such functionality. An added detail is to determine whether OSPFv3 IPsec implementations use AH or ESP-Null for integrity protection. In early implementations, all OSPFv3 IPsec configurations relied on AH since the details weren't specified in [RFC5340]. However, the document which specifically describes how IPsec should be implemented for OSPFv3 [RFC4552] specifically states that "ESP-Null MUST and AH MAY be implemented" since it follows the overall IPsec standards wording. OSPFv3 can also use normal ESP to encrypt the OSPFv3 payload to provide confidentiality for the routing information.¶
[RFC7166] changes OSPFv3 reliance on IPsec by appending an authentication trailer to the end of the OSPFv3 packets; it does not specifically authenticate the specific originator of an OSPFv3 packet; rather, it allows a router to confirm that the packet has been issued by a router that had access to the shared authentication key.¶
With all authentication mechanisms, operators should confirm that implementations can support re-keying mechanisms that do not cause outages. There have been instances where any re-keying causes outages and therefore, the tradeoff between utilizing this functionality needs to be weighed against the protection it provides.¶
IPv6 initially mandated the provisioning of IPsec capability in all nodes. However, in the updated IPv6 Nodes Requirement standard [RFC8504], IPsec is a 'SHOULD' and not a 'MUST' implement. Theoretically, it is possible that all communication between two IPv6 nodes, especially routers exchanging routing information, is encrypted using IPsec. In practice however, deploying IPsec is not always feasible given hardware and software limitations of the various platforms deployed.¶
Many routing protocols support the use of cryptography to protect the routing updates, the use of this protection is recommended; [RFC8177] is a YANG data model key chains including the renewal.¶
Route filtering policies will be different depending on whether they pertain to edge route filtering vs. internal route filtering. At a minimum, IPv6 routing policy as it pertains to routing between different administrative domains should aim to maintain parity with IPv4 from a policy perspective, e.g.,¶
Some good guidance can be found at [RFC7454].¶
A valid routing table can also be used to apply network ingress filtering (see [RFC2827]).¶
In order to perform forensic research in the cases of a security incident or detecting abnormal behavior, network operators should log multiple pieces of information. In some cases, this requires a frequent poll of devices via a Network Management Station.¶
This logging should include:¶
Please note that there are privacy issues or regulations related to how these logs are collected, stored, and safely discarded. Operators are urged to check their country legislation (e.g., General Data Protection Regulation GDPR [GDPR] in the European Union).¶
All those pieces of information can be used for:¶
This section lists the most important sources of data that are useful for operational security.¶
Those logs are usually text files where the remote IPv6 address is stored in clear text (not binary). This can complicate the processing since one IPv6 address, for example 2001:db8::1 can be written in multiple ways, such as:¶
[RFC5952] explains this problem in detail and recommends the use of a single canonical format. This document recommends the use of canonical format [RFC5952] for IPv6 addresses in all possible cases. If the existing application cannot log using the canonical format, then it is recommended to use an external post-processing program in order to canonicalize all IPv6 addresses.¶
For example, this perl script can be used:¶
<CODE BEGINS>
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict ;
use warnings ;
use Socket ;
use Socket6 ;
my (@words, $word, $binary_address) ;
## go through the file one line at a time
while (my $line = <STDIN>) {
chomp $line;
foreach my $word (split /[\s+]/, $line) {
$binary_address = inet_pton AF_INET6, $word ;
if ($binary_address) {
print inet_ntop AF_INET6, $binary_address ;
} else {
print $word ;
}
print " " ;
}
print "\n" ;
}
<CODE ENDS>¶
IPFIX [RFC7012] defines some data elements that are useful for security:¶
The IP version is the ipVersion element defined in [IANA-IPFIX].¶
Moreover, IPFIX is very efficient in terms of data handling and transport. It can also aggregate flows by a key such as sourceMacAddress in order to have aggregated data associated with a specific sourceMacAddress. This memo recommends the use of IPFIX and aggregation on nextHeaderIPv6, sourceIPv6Address, and sourceMacAddress.¶
RFC 4293 [RFC4293] defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for the two address families of IP. This memo recommends the use of:¶
There are also YANG modules relating to the two IP addresses families and can be used with [RFC6241] and [RFC8040]. This memo recommends the use of:¶
The neighbor cache of routers contains all mappings between IPv6 addresses and data-link layer addresses. There are multiple ways to collect the current entries in the Neighbor Cache, notably but not limited to:¶
The neighbor cache is highly dynamic as mappings are added when a new IPv6 address appears on the network. This could be quite frequently with privacy extension addresses [RFC8981] or when they are removed when the state goes from UNREACH to removed (the default time for a removal per Neighbor Unreachability Detection [RFC4861] algorithm is 38 seconds for a host using Windows 7). This means that the content of the neighbor cache must periodically be fetched at an interval which does not exhaust the router resources and still provides valuable information (suggested value is 30 seconds but this should be verified in the actual deployment) and stored for later use.¶
This is an important source of information because it is trivial (on a switch not using the SAVI [RFC7039] algorithm) to defeat the mapping between data-link layer address and IPv6 address. Let us rephrase the previous statement: having access to the current and past content of the neighbor cache has a paramount value for the forensic and audit trail.¶
When using one /64 per host (Section 2.1.7) or DHCP-PD, it is sufficient to keep the history of the allocated prefixes when combined with strict source address prefix enforcement on the routers and layer-2 switches to prevent IPv6 spoofing.¶
In some networks, IPv6 addresses/prefixes are managed by a stateful DHCPv6 server [RFC8415] that leases IPv6 addresses/prefixes to clients. It is indeed quite similar to DHCP for IPv4 so it can be tempting to use this DHCP lease file to discover the mapping between IPv6 addresses/prefixes and data-link layer addresses as is commonly used in IPv4 networking.¶
It is not so easy in the IPv6 networks because not all nodes will use DHCPv6 (there are nodes which can only do stateless autoconfiguration) but also because DHCPv6 clients are identified not by their hardware-client address as in IPv4 but by a DHCP Unique ID (DUID) which can have several formats: some being the data-link layer address, some being data-link layer address prepended with time information, or even an opaque number which is useless for operational security. Moreover, when the DUID is based on the data-link address, this address can be of any client interface (such as the wireless interface while the client actually uses its wired interface to connect to the network).¶
If a lightweight DHCP relay agent [RFC6221] is used in a layer-2 switch, then the DHCP servers also receive the Interface-ID information which could be saved in order to identify the interface on which the switch received a specific leased IPv6 address. Also, if a 'normal' (not lightweight) relay agent adds the data-link layer address in the option for Relay Agent Remote-ID [RFC4649] or [RFC6939], then the DHCPv6 server can keep track of the data-link and leased IPv6 addresses.¶
In short, the DHCPv6 lease file is less interesting than for IPv4 networks. If possible, it is recommended to use DHCPv6 servers that keep the relayed data-link layer address in addition to the DUID in the lease file as those servers have the equivalent information to IPv4 DHCP servers.¶
The mapping between data-link layer address and the IPv6 address can be secured by deploying switches implementing the SAVI [RFC7513] mechanisms. Of course, this also requires that the data-link layer address is protected by using a layer-2 mechanism such as [IEEE-802.1X].¶
For interfaces where the user is authenticated via a RADIUS [RFC2866] server, and if RADIUS accounting is enabled, then the RADIUS server receives accounting Acct-Status-Type records at the start and at the end of the connection which include all IPv6 (and IPv4) addresses used by the user. This technique can be used notably for Wi-Fi networks with Wi-Fi Protected Address (WPA) or any other IEEE 802.1X [IEEE-802.1X] wired interface on an Ethernet switch.¶
There are other data sources for log information that must be collected (as currently collected in IPv4 networks):¶
This section leverages the data collected as described before (Section 2.6.1) in order to achieve several security benefits. Section 9.1 of [RFC7934] contains more details about host tracking.¶
The forensic use case is when the network operator must locate an IPv6 address that was present in the network at a certain time or is currently in the network.¶
To locate an IPv6 address in an enterprise network where the operator has control over all resources, the source of information can be the neighbor cache, or, if not found, the DHCP lease file. Then, the procedure is:¶
At the end of the process, the interface of the host originating, or the subscriber identity associated with, the activity in question has been determined.¶
To identify the subscriber of an IPv6 address in a residential Internet Service Provider, the starting point is the DHCP-PD leased prefix covering the IPv6 address; this prefix can often be linked to a subscriber via the RADIUS log. Alternatively, the Forwarding Information Base of the CMTS or BNG indicates the CPE of the subscriber and the RADIUS log can be used to retrieve the actual subscriber.¶
More generally, a mix of the above techniques can be used in most, if not all, networks.¶
RFC 7707 [RFC7707] describes the difficulties for an attacker to scan an IPv6 network due to the vast number of IPv6 addresses per link (and why in some cases it can still be done). While the huge addressing space can sometimes be perceived as a 'protection', it also makes the inventory task difficult in an IPv6 network while it was trivial to do in an IPv4 network (a simple enumeration of all IPv4 addresses, followed by a ping and a TCP/UDP port scan). Getting an inventory of all connected devices is of prime importance for a secure network operation.¶
There are many ways to do an inventory of an IPv6 network.¶
The first technique is to use the IPFIX information and extract the list of all IPv6 source addresses to find all IPv6 nodes that sent packets through a router. This is very efficient but, alas, will not discover silent nodes that never transmitted packets traversing the IPFIX target router. Also, it must be noted that link-local addresses will never be discovered by this means.¶
The second way is again to use the collected neighbor cache content to find all IPv6 addresses in the cache. This process will also discover all link-local addresses. See Section 2.6.1.4.¶
Another way that works only for a local network, consists of sending a ICMP ECHO_REQUEST to the link-local multicast address ff02::1 which addresses all IPv6 nodes on the network. All nodes should reply to this ECHO_REQUEST per [RFC4443].¶
Other techniques involve obtaining data from DNS, parsing log files, leveraging service discovery such as mDNS [RFC6762] and [RFC6763].¶
Enumerating DNS zones, especially looking at reverse DNS records and CNAMES, is another common method employed by various tools. As already mentioned in [RFC7707], this allows an attacker to prune the IPv6 reverse DNS tree, and hence enumerate it in a feasible time. Furthermore, authoritative servers that allow zone transfers (AXFR) may be a further information source.¶
In an IPv4 network, it is easy to correlate multiple logs, for example to find events related to a specific IPv4 address. A simple Unix grep command is enough to scan through multiple text-based files and extract all lines relevant to a specific IPv4 address.¶
In an IPv6 network, this is slightly more difficult because different character strings can express the same IPv6 address. Therefore, the simple Unix grep command cannot be used. Moreover, an IPv6 node can have multiple IPv6 addresses.¶
In order to do correlation in IPv6-related logs, it is advised to have all logs in a format with only canonical IPv6 addresses [RFC5952]. Then, the neighbor cache current (or historical) data set must be searched to find the data-link layer address of the IPv6 address. Then, the current and historical neighbor cache data sets must be searched for all IPv6 addresses associated to this data-link layer address to derive the search set. The last step is to search in all log files (containing only IPv6 address in canonical format) for any IPv6 addresses in the search set.¶
Moreover, [RFC7934] recommends using multiple IPv6 addresses per prefix, so, the correlation must also be done among those multiple IPv6 addresses, for example by discovering in the NDP cache (Section 2.6.1.4) all IPv6 addresses associated with the same MAC address and interface.¶
Abnormal behavior (such as network scanning, spamming, denial-of-service) can be detected in the same way as in an IPv4 network.¶
While some data sources (IPFIX, MIB, switch CAM tables, logs, ...) used in IPv4 are also used in the secure operation of an IPv6 network, the DHCPv6 lease file is less reliable and the neighbor cache is of prime importance.¶
The fact that there are multiple ways to express the same IPv6 address in a character string renders the use of filters mandatory when correlation must be done.¶
As it is expected that some networks will not run in a pure IPv6-only mode, the different transition mechanisms must be deployed and operated in a secure way. This section proposes operational guidelines for the most known and deployed transition techniques.¶
Dual stack is often the first deployment choice for network operators. Dual stacking the network offers some advantages over other transition mechanisms. Firstly, the impact on existing IPv4 operations is reduced. Secondly, in the absence of tunnels or address translation, the IPv4 and IPv6 traffic are native (easier to observe and secure) and should have the same network processing (network path, quality of service, ...). Dual stack enables a gradual termination of the IPv4 operations when the IPv6 network is ready for prime time. On the other hand, the operators have to manage two network stacks with the added complexities.¶
From an operational security perspective, this now means that the network operator has twice the exposure. One needs to think about protecting both protocols now. At a minimum, the IPv6 portion of a dual-stacked network should be consistent with IPv4 from a security policy point of view. Typically, the following methods are employed to protect IPv4 networks at the edge or security perimeter:¶
It is recommended that these ACLs and/or firewalls be additionally configured to protect IPv6 communications. The enforced IPv6 security must be congruent with the IPv4 security policy, otherwise the attacker will use the protocol version having the more relaxed security policy. Maintaining the congruence between security policies can be challenging (especially over time); it is recommended to use a firewall or an ACL manager that is dual-stack, i.e., a system that can apply a single ACL entry to a mixed group of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.¶
Also, given the end-to-end connectivity that IPv6 provides, it is recommended that hosts be fortified against threats. General device hardening guidelines are provided in Section 2.8.¶
For many years, all host operating systems have IPv6 enabled by default, so, it is possible even in an 'IPv4-only' network to attack layer-2 adjacent victims via their IPv6 link-local address or via a global IPv6 address when the attacker provides rogue RAs or a rogue DHCPv6 service.¶
[RFC7123] discusses the security implications of native IPv6 support and IPv6 transition/coexistence technologies on "IPv4-only" networks and describes possible mitigations for the aforementioned issues.¶
There are many tunnels used for specific use cases. Except when protected by IPsec [RFC4301], all those tunnels have a couple of security issues as described in RFC 6169 [RFC6169];¶
To mitigate the bypassing of security policies, it is recommended to block all default configuration tunnels by denying IPv4 packets matching:¶
Ingress filtering [RFC2827] should also be applied on all tunnel endpoints if applicable to prevent IPv6 address spoofing.¶
As several of the tunnel techniques share the same encapsulation (i.e., IPv4 protocol 41) and embed the IPv4 address in the IPv6 address, there are a set of well-known looping attacks described in RFC 6324 [RFC6324]. This RFC also proposes mitigation techniques.¶
Site-to-site static tunnels are described in RFC 2529 [RFC2529] and in GRE [RFC2784]. As the IPv4 endpoints are statically configured and are not dynamic, they are slightly more secure (bi-directional service theft is mostly impossible) but traffic interception and tunnel injection are still possible. Therefore, the use of IPsec [RFC4301] in transport mode and protecting the encapsulated IPv4 packets is recommended for those tunnels. Alternatively, IPsec in tunnel mode can be used to transport IPv6 traffic over a non-trusted IPv4 network.¶
ISATAP tunnels [RFC5214] are mainly used within a single administrative domain and to connect a single IPv6 host to the IPv6 network. This often implies that those systems are usually managed by a single entity; therefore, audit trail and strict anti-spoofing are usually possible and this raises the overall security.¶
Special care must be taken to avoid a looping attack by implementing the measures of [RFC6324] and [RFC6964].¶
IPsec [RFC4301] in transport or tunnel mode can be used to secure the IPv4 ISATAP traffic to provide IPv6 traffic confidentiality and prevent service theft.¶
While 6rd tunnels share the same encapsulation as 6to4 tunnels (Section 2.7.2.7), they are designed to be used within a single SP domain, in other words, they are deployed in a more constrained environment than 6to4 tunnels and have few security issues other than lack of confidentiality. The security considerations (Section 12) of [RFC5969] describes how to secure 6rd tunnels.¶
IPsec [RFC4301] for the transported IPv6 traffic can be used if confidentiality is important.¶
Organizations using MPLS in their core can also use 6PE [RFC4798] and 6VPE [RFC4659] to enable IPv6 access over MPLS. As 6PE and 6VPE are really similar to BGP/MPLS IP VPNs described in [RFC4364], the security properties of these networks are also similar to those described in [RFC4381]. They rely on:¶
LDPv6 itself does not induce new risks, see also [RFC7552].¶
DS-lite is also a translation mechanism and is therefore analyzed further (Section 2.7.3.3) in this document as it includes IPv4 NAPT.¶
With the encapsulation and translation versions of mapping of Address and Port (MAP) (MAP-E [RFC7597] and MAP-T [RFC7599]), the access network is purely an IPv6 network and MAP protocols are used to provide IPv4 hosts on the subscriber network access to IPv4 hosts on the Internet. The subscriber router does stateful operations in order to map all internal IPv4 addresses and layer-4 ports to the IPv4 address and the set of layer-4 ports received through MAP configuration process. The SP equipment always does stateless operations (either decapsulation or stateless translation). Therefore, as opposed to Section 2.7.3.3, there is no state-exhaustion DoS attack against the SP equipment because there is no state and there is no operation caused by a new layer-4 connection (no logging operation).¶
The SP MAP equipment should implement all the security considerations of [RFC7597]; notably, ensuring that the mapping of the IPv4 address and port are consistent with the configuration. As MAP has a predictable IPv4 address and port mapping, the audit logs are easier to manage.¶
6to4 tunnels [RFC3056] require a public routable IPv4 address in order to work correctly. They can be used to provide either single IPv6 host connectivity to the IPv6 Internet or multiple IPv6 networks connectivity to the IPv6 Internet. The 6to4 relay was historically the anycast address defined in [RFC3068] which has been deprecated by [RFC7526] and is no longer used by recent Operating Systems. Some security considerations are explained in [RFC3964].¶
[RFC6343] points out that if an operator provides well-managed servers and relays for 6to4, non-encapsulated IPv6 packets will pass through well-defined points (the native IPv6 interfaces of those servers and relays) at which security mechanisms may be applied. Client usage of 6to4 by default is now discouraged, and significant precautions are needed to avoid operational problems.¶
Teredo tunnels [RFC4380] are mainly used in a residential environment because Teredo easily traverses an IPv4 NAPT device thanks to its UDP encapsulation. Teredo tunnels connect a single host to the IPv6 Internet. Teredo shares the same issues as other tunnels: no authentication, no confidentiality, possible spoofing and reflection attacks.¶
IPsec [RFC4301] for the transported IPv6 traffic is recommended.¶
The biggest threat to Teredo is probably for an IPv4-only network as Teredo has been designed to easily traverse IPv4 NAT-PT devices which are quite often co-located with a stateful firewall. Therefore, if the stateful IPv4 firewall allows unrestricted UDP outbound and accepts the return UDP traffic, then Teredo actually punches a hole in this firewall for all IPv6 traffic to the Internet and from the Internet. While host policies can be deployed to block Teredo in an IPv4-only network in order to avoid this firewall bypass, it would be enough to block all UDP outbound traffic at the IPv4 firewall if deemed possible (of course, at least port 53 should be left open for DNS traffic, port 123 for NTP, port 443 for QUIC, port 500 for IKE, port 3478 for STUN, i.e., filter judiciously).¶
Teredo is now hardly never used and no longer enabled by default in most environments, so, it is less of a threat, however, special consideration must be taken in case of devices with older or non-updated operating systems may be present and by default were running Teredo.¶
Translation mechanisms between IPv4 and IPv6 networks are alternate coexistence strategies while networks transition to IPv6. While a framework is described in [RFC6144], the specific security considerations are documented with each individual mechanism. For the most part, they specifically mention interference with IPsec or DNSSEC deployments, how to mitigate spoofed traffic, and what some effective filtering strategies may be.¶
While not really a transition mechanism to IPv6, this section also includes the discussion about the use of heavy IPv4-to-IPv4 network address and port translation to prolong the life of IPv4-only networks.¶
Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), also called NAT444 CGN or Large Scale NAT (LSN) or SP NAT is described in [RFC6264] and is utilized as an interim measure to extend the use of IPv4 in a large service provider network until the provider can deploy an effective IPv6 solution. [RFC6598] requested a specific IANA allocated /10 IPv4 address block to be used as address space shared by all access networks using CGN. This has been allocated as 100.64.0.0/10.¶
Section 13 of [RFC6269] lists some specific security-related issues caused by large scale address sharing. The Security Considerations section of [RFC6598] also lists some specific mitigation techniques for potential misuse of shared address space. Some Law Enforcement Agencies have identified CGN as impeding their cyber-crime investigations (for example Europol press release on CGN [europol-cgn]). Many translation techniques (NAT64, DS-lite, ...) have the same security issues as CGN when one part of the connection is IPv4-only.¶
[RFC6302] has recommendations for Internet-facing servers to also log the source TCP or UDP ports of incoming connections in an attempt to help identify the users behind such a CGN.¶
[RFC7422] suggests the use of deterministic address mapping in order to reduce logging requirements for CGN. The idea is to have a known algorithm for mapping the internal subscriber to/from public TCP and UDP ports.¶
[RFC6888] lists common requirements for CGNs. [RFC6967] analyzes some solutions to enforce policies on misbehaving nodes when address sharing is used. [RFC7857] also updates the NAT behavioral requirements.¶
Stateful NAT64 translation [RFC6146] allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP. It can be used in conjunction with DNS64 [RFC6147], a mechanism which synthesizes AAAA records from existing A records. There is also a stateless NAT64 [RFC7915], which has similar security aspects but with the added benefit of being stateless, so, less prone to a state exhaustion attack.¶
The Security Consideration sections of [RFC6146] and [RFC6147] list the comprehensive issues. A specific issue with the use of NAT64 is that it will interfere with most IPsec deployments unless UDP encapsulation is used. DNSSEC and DNS64 negatively interact, see section 3.1 of [RFC7050].¶
Another translation mechanism relying on a combination of stateful and stateless translation, 464XLAT [RFC6877], can be used to do host local translation from IPv4 to IPv6 and a network provider translation from IPv6 to IPv4, i.e., giving IPv4-only application access to an IPv4-only server over an IPv6-only network. 464XLAT shares the same security considerations as NAT64 and DNS64, however it can be used without DNS64, avoiding the DNSSEC implications.¶
Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333] is a transition technique that enables a service provider to share IPv4 addresses among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and IPv4 NAPT.¶
Security considerations with respect to DS-Lite mainly revolve around logging data, preventing DoS attacks from rogue devices (as the Address Family Translation Router (AFTR) [RFC6333] function is stateful) and restricting service offered by the AFTR only to registered customers.¶
Section 11 of [RFC6333] and section 2 of [RFC7785] describe important security issues associated with this technology.¶
With almost all devices being IPv6 enabled by default and with many end points having IPv6 connectivity to the Internet, it is critical to also harden those devices against attacks over IPv6.¶
The following guidelines should be used to ensure appropriate hardening of the device, be it an individual host, router, firewall, load-balancer, server, etc. device.¶
Enterprises [RFC7381] generally have robust network security policies in place to protect existing IPv4 networks. These policies have been distilled from years of experiential knowledge of securing IPv4 networks. At the very least, it is recommended that enterprise networks have parity between their security policies for both protocol versions. This section also applies to the enterprise part of all SP networks, i.e., the part of the network where the SP employees are connected.¶
Security considerations in the enterprise can be broadly categorized into two groups: External and Internal.¶
The external aspect deals with providing security at the edge or perimeter of the enterprise network where it meets the service provider's network. This is commonly achieved by enforcing a security policy either by implementing dedicated firewalls with stateful packet inspection or a router with ACLs. A common default IPv4 policy on firewalls that could easily be ported to IPv6 is to allow all traffic outbound while only allowing specific traffic, such as established sessions, inbound (see also [RFC6092]). Section 3.2 of [RFC7381] also provides similar recommendations.¶
Here are a few more things that could enhance the default policy:¶
Having global IPv6 address on all the enterprises sites is different than in IPv4 where [RFC1918] addresses are often used internally and not routed over the Internet. [RFC7359] and [WEBER_VPN] explain that without careful design, there could be IPv6 leakages from layer-3 VPNs.¶
The internal aspect deals with providing security inside the perimeter of the network, including end hosts. Internal networks of enterprises are often different: University campus, wireless guest access, ... so there is no "one size fits all" recommendation.¶
The most significant concerns here are related to Neighbor Discovery. At the network level, it is recommended that all security considerations discussed in Section 2.3 be reviewed carefully and the recommendations be considered in-depth as well. Section 4.1 of [RFC7381] also provides some recommendations.¶
As mentioned in Section 2.7.2, care must be taken when running automated IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels.¶
When site-to-site VPNs are used it should be kept in mind that, given the global scope of IPv6 global addresses as opposed to the common use of IPv4 private address space [RFC1918], sites might be able to communicate with each other over the Internet even when the VPN mechanism is not available and hence no traffic encryption is performed and traffic could be injected from the Internet into the site, see [WEBER_VPN]. It is recommended to filter at Internet connection(s) packets having a source or destination address belonging to the site internal prefix(es); this should be done for ingress and egress traffic.¶
Hosts need to be hardened directly through security policy to protect against security threats. The host firewall default capabilities have to be clearly understood. In some cases, 3rd party firewalls have no IPv6 support whereas the native firewall installed by default has IPv6 support. General device hardening guidelines are provided in Section 2.8.¶
It should also be noted that many hosts still use IPv4 for transporting logs for RADIUS, DIAMETER, TACACS+, SYSLOG, etc. Operators cannot rely on an IPv6-only security policy to secure such protocols that are still using IPv4.¶
The threats and mitigation techniques are identical between IPv4 and IPv6. Broadly speaking they are:¶
These are explained in more detail in Section 2.5. Also, the recommendations of [RFC7454] should be considered.¶
RTBH [RFC5635] works identically in IPv4 and IPv6. IANA has allocated the 100::/64 prefix to be used as the discard prefix [RFC6666].¶
SPs will typically use transition mechanisms such as 6rd, 6PE, MAP, and NAT64 which have been analyzed in the transition and coexistence Section 2.7 section.¶
The Lawful Intercept requirements are similar for IPv6 and IPv4 architectures and will be subject to the laws enforced in different geographic regions. The local issues with each jurisdiction can make this challenging and both corporate legal and privacy personnel should be involved in discussions pertaining to what information gets logged and with regard to the respective log retention policies for this information.¶
The target of interception will usually be a residential subscriber (e.g., his/her PPP session, physical line, or CPE MAC address). With the absence of IPv6 NAT on the CPE, IPv6 has the possibility to allow for intercepting the traffic from a single host (i.e., a /128 target) rather than the whole set of hosts of a subscriber (which could be a /48, /60, or /64).¶
In contrast, in mobile environments, since the 3GPP specifications allocate a /64 per device, it may be sufficient to intercept traffic from the /64 rather than specific /128's (since each time the device establishes a data connection it gets a new IID).¶
A sample architecture which was written for informational purposes is found in [RFC3924].¶
The IETF Homenet working group is working on standards and guidelines for IPv6 residential networks; this obviously includes operational security considerations; but this is still work in progress. [RFC8520] is an interesting approach on how firewalls could retrieve and apply specific security policies to some residential devices.¶
Some residential users have less experience and knowledge about security or networking. As most of the recent hosts (e.g., smartphones, tablets) have IPv6 enabled by default, IPv6 security is important for those users. Even with an IPv4-only ISP, those users can get IPv6 Internet access with the help of Teredo (Section 2.7.2.8) tunnels. Several peer-to-peer programs support IPv6 and those programs can initiate a Teredo tunnel through an IPv4 residential gateway, with the consequence of making the internal host reachable from any IPv6 host on the Internet. It is therefore recommended that all host security products (including personal firewalls) are configured with a dual-stack security policy.¶
If the residential CPE has IPv6 connectivity, [RFC7084] defines the requirements of an IPv6 CPE and does not take a position on the debate of default IPv6 security policy as defined in [RFC6092]:¶
[RFC6092] REC-49 states that a choice must be given to the user to select one of those two policies.¶
There are several documents that describe in more detail the security of an IPv6 network; these documents are not written by the IETF and some of them are dated but are listed here for the reader's convenience:¶
The authors would like to thank the following people for their useful comments: Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Mustafa Suha Botsali, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, Markus de Bruen, Tobias Fiebig, Fernando Gont, Jeffry Handal, Lee Howard, Panos Kampanakis, Erik Kline, Jouni Korhonen, Warren Kumari, Ted Lemon, Mark Lentczner, Acee Lindem (and his detailed nits), Jen Linkova (and her detailed review), Gyan S. Mishra, Jordi Palet, Bob Sleigh, Donald Smith, Tarko Tikan, Ole Troan, Bernie Volz (by alphabetical order).¶
This memo attempts to give an overview of security considerations of operating an IPv6 network both for an IPv6-only network and for networks utilizing the most widely deployed IPv4/IPv6 coexistence strategies.¶