Tech-invite3GPPspecsSIPRFCs
898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100

in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 5095

Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6

Pages: 7
Proposed Standard
Updates:  24604294

Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                           J. Abley
Request for Comments: 5095                                       Afilias
Updates: 2460, 4294                                            P. Savola
Category: Standards Track                                      CSC/FUNET
                                                         G. Neville-Neil
                                                 Neville-Neil Consulting
                                                           December 2007


             Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

The functionality provided by IPv6's Type 0 Routing Header can be exploited in order to achieve traffic amplification over a remote path for the purposes of generating denial-of-service traffic. This document updates the IPv6 specification to deprecate the use of IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headers, in light of this security concern.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deprecation of RH0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2. Firewall Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 2

1. Introduction

[RFC2460] defines an IPv6 extension header called "Routing Header", identified by a Next Header value of 43 in the immediately preceding header. A particular Routing Header subtype denoted as "Type 0" is also defined. Type 0 Routing Headers are referred to as "RH0" in this document. A single RH0 may contain multiple intermediate node addresses, and the same address may be included more than once in the same RH0. This allows a packet to be constructed such that it will oscillate between two RH0-processing hosts or routers many times. This allows a stream of packets from an attacker to be amplified along the path between two remote routers, which could be used to cause congestion along arbitrary remote paths and hence act as a denial-of-service mechanism. An 88-fold amplification has been demonstrated using this technique [CanSecWest07]. This attack is particularly serious in that it affects the entire path between the two exploited nodes, not only the nodes themselves or their local networks. Analogous functionality may be found in the IPv4 source route option, but the opportunities for abuse are greater with RH0 due to the ability to specify many more intermediate node addresses in each packet. The severity of this threat is considered to be sufficient to warrant deprecation of RH0 entirely. A side effect is that this also eliminates benign RH0 use-cases; however, such applications may be facilitated by future Routing Header specifications. Potential problems with RH0 were identified in 2001 [Security]. In 2002 a proposal was made to restrict Routing Header processing in hosts [Hosts]. These efforts resulted in the modification of the Mobile IPv6 specification to use the type 2 Routing Header instead of RH0 [RFC3775]. Vishwas Manral identified various risks associated with RH0 in 2006 including the amplification attack; several of these vulnerabilities (together with other issues) were later documented in [RFC4942]. A treatment of the operational security implications of RH0 was presented by Philippe Biondi and Arnaud Ebalard at the CanSecWest conference in Vancouver, 2007 [CanSecWest07]. This presentation resulted in widespread publicity for the risks associated with RH0. This document updates [RFC2460] and [RFC4294].
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 3

2. Definitions

RH0 in this document denotes the IPv6 Extension Header type 43 ("Routing Header") variant 0 ("Type 0 Routing Header"), as defined in [RFC2460]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. Deprecation of RH0

An IPv6 node that receives a packet with a destination address assigned to it and that contains an RH0 extension header MUST NOT execute the algorithm specified in the latter part of Section 4.4 of [RFC2460] for RH0. Instead, such packets MUST be processed according to the behaviour specified in Section 4.4 of [RFC2460] for a datagram that includes an unrecognised Routing Type value, namely: If Segments Left is zero, the node must ignore the Routing header and proceed to process the next header in the packet, whose type is identified by the Next Header field in the Routing header. If Segments Left is non-zero, the node must discard the packet and send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 0, message to the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized Routing Type. IPv6 implementations are no longer required to implement RH0 in any way.

4. Operations

4.1. Ingress Filtering

It is to be expected that it will take some time before all IPv6 nodes are updated to remove support for RH0. Some of the uses of RH0 described in [CanSecWest07] can be mitigated using ingress filtering, as recommended in [RFC2827] and [RFC3704]. A site security policy intended to protect against attacks using RH0 SHOULD include the implementation of ingress filtering at the site border.

4.2. Firewall Policy

Blocking all IPv6 packets that carry Routing Headers (rather than specifically blocking Type 0 and permitting other types) has very serious implications for the future development of IPv6. If even a
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 4
   small percentage of deployed firewalls block other types of Routing
   Headers by default, it will become impossible in practice to extend
   IPv6 Routing Headers.  For example, Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] relies upon
   a Type 2 Routing Header; wide-scale, indiscriminate blocking of
   Routing Headers will make Mobile IPv6 undeployable.

   Firewall policy intended to protect against packets containing RH0
   MUST NOT simply filter all traffic with a Routing Header; it must be
   possible to disable forwarding of Type 0 traffic without blocking
   other types of Routing Headers.  In addition, the default
   configuration MUST permit forwarding of traffic using a Routing
   Header other than 0.

5. Security Considerations

The purpose of this document is to deprecate a feature of IPv6 that has been shown to have undesirable security implications. Specific examples of vulnerabilities that are facilitated by the availability of RH0 can be found in [CanSecWest07]. In particular, RH0 provides a mechanism for traffic amplification, which might be used as a denial- of-service attack. A description of this functionality can be found in Section 1.

6. IANA Considerations

The IANA registry "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" should be updated to reflect that variant 0 of IPv6 header-type 43 ("Routing Header") is deprecated.

7. Acknowledgements

This document benefits from the contributions of many IPV6 and V6OPS working group participants, including Jari Arkko, Arnaud Ebalard, Tim Enos, Brian Haberman, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Bob Hinden, Thomas Narten, Jinmei Tatuya, David Malone, Jeroen Massar, Dave Thaler, and Guillaume Valadon.
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 5

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, April 2006.

8.2. Informative References

[CanSecWest07] Biondi, P. and A. Ebalard, "IPv6 Routing Header Security", CanSecWest Security Conference 2007, April 2007. http://www.secdev.org/conf/IPv6_RH_security-csw07.pdf [Hosts] Savola, P., "Note about Routing Header Processing on IPv6 Hosts", Work in Progress, February 2002. [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. [RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942, September 2007. [Security] Savola, P., "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home Address Options", Work in Progress, March 2002.
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 6

Authors' Addresses

Joe Abley Afilias Canada Corp. Suite 204, 4141 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M2P 2A8 Canada Phone: +1 416 673 4176 EMail: jabley@ca.afilias.info Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo, Finland EMail: psavola@funet.fi George Neville-Neil Neville-Neil Consulting 2261 Market St. #239 San Francisco, CA 94114 USA EMail: gnn@neville-neil.com
Top   ToC   RFC5095 - Page 7
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.