[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-savola-v6ops-6to4-security) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 3964

v6ops Working Group                                            P. Savola
Internet-Draft                                                 CSC/FUNET
Expires: January 16, 2005                                       C. Patel
                                                       All Play, No Work
                                                           July 18, 2004



                    Security Considerations for 6to4
                 draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-security-04.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.


   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."


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2005.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


Abstract


   The IPv6 interim mechanism 6to4 (RFC3056) uses automatic
   IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling to interconnect IPv6 networks.  The
   architecture includes 6to4 routers and 6to4 relay routers, which
   accept and decapsulate IPv4 protocol-41 ("IPv6-in-IPv4") traffic from
   any node in the IPv4 internet.  This characteristic enables a number
   of security threats, mainly Denial of Service.  It also makes it




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   easier for nodes to spoof IPv6 addresses.  This document discusses
   these issues in more detail and suggests enhancements to alleviate
   the problems.


Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Different 6to4 Forwarding Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1   From 6to4 to 6to4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2   From Native to 6to4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3   From 6to4 to Native  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4   Other Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.4.1   BGP Between 6to4 Routers and Relays  . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.4.2   6to4 as an Optimization Method . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.4.3   6to4 as Tunnel End-Point Addressing Mechanism  . . . .  8
   3.  Functionalities of 6to4 Network Components . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1   6to4 Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2   6to4 Relay Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Threat Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1   Attacks on 6to4 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.1.1   Attacks with ND Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.1.2   Spoofing Traffic to 6to4 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.1.3   Reflecting Traffic to 6to4 Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.1.4   Local IPv4 Broadcast Attack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.2   Attacks on Native IPv6 Internet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.2.1   Attacks with ND Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.2.2   Spoofing Traffic to Native IPv6 node . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.2.3   Reflecting Traffic to Native IPv6 nodes  . . . . . . . 23
       4.2.4   Local IPv4 Broadcast Attack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       4.2.5   Theft of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       4.2.6   Relay Operators Seen as Source of Abuse  . . . . . . . 26
     4.3   Attacks on IPv4 Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     4.4   Summary of the Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   5.  Implementing Proper Security Checks in 6to4  . . . . . . . . . 30
     5.1   Encapsulating IPv6 into IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.2   Decapsulating IPv4 into IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     5.3   IPv4 and IPv6 Sanity Checks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       5.3.1   IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       5.3.2   IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.3.3   Optional Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       5.3.4   Notes About the Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   6.  Issues in 6to4 Implementation and Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     6.1   Implementation Considerations with Automatic Tunnels . . . 34
     6.2   A Different Model for 6to4 Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   10.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   10.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   10.2  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   A.  Some Trivial Attack Scenarios Outlined . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 41














































Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



1.  Introduction


   The IPv6 interim mechanism "6to4" [1] specifies automatic
   IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling to interconnect isolated IPv6 clouds by
   embedding the tunnel IPv4 address in the IPv6 6to4 prefix.


   Two characteristics of the 6to4 mechanism introduce most of the
   security considerations:


   1.  All 6to4 routers must accept and decapsulate IPv4 packets from
       every other 6to4 router, and 6to4 relays.


   2.  6to4 relay routers must accept traffic from any native IPv6 node.


   Since the 6to4 router must accept traffic from any other 6to4 router
   or relay, a certain requirement for trust is implied, and there are
   no strict constraints on what the IPv6 packet may contain.  Thus,
   addresses within the IPv4, and IPv6 header may be spoofed, and this
   property leads to various types of threats including different
   flavors of Denial of Service -attacks.


   The 6to4 specification outlined a few security considerations and
   rules, but was very ambiguous on their exact requirement level.
   Further, the description of the considerations was rather short, and
   in fact, some of them have been proven to be difficult to understand
   or impossible to implement.


   This draft analyzes the 6to4 security issues in more detail and
   outlines some enhancements and caveats.


   Section 2, and Section 3 are more or less introductory in nature,
   rehashing how 6to4 is used today based on the 6to4 specification, so
   that it is easier to understand how security could be affected.
   Section 4 provides a threat analysis for implementations that already
   implement most of the security checks.  Section 5 describes the
   optimal decapsulation/encapsulation rules for 6to4 implementations,
   and Section 6 provides further discussion on a few issues which have
   proven to be difficult to implement.  Appendix A outlines a few
   possible trivial attack scenarios in the case that very little or no
   security has been implemented.


   For the sake of simplicity, in this document, the native Internet is
   assumed to encompass IPv6 networks formed using other transition
   mechanisms (e.g.  RFC 2893 [4]), as these mechanisms cannot talk
   directly to the 6to4 network.


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].


   Throughout this memo, IPv4 addresses from blocks 7.0.0.0/24, 8.0.0.0/
   24 and 9.0.0.0/24 are used for demonstrative purposes, to represent
   global IPv4 addresses which have no relation to each other.  This
   approach was chosen instead of just using addresses from 192.0.2.0/24
   [5] for two reasons: to use addresses whose 6to4 mapping is
   blindingly obvious, and to make it obvious that the IPv4 addresses of
   different 6to4 gateways do not have to have any relation to each
   other.


2.  Different 6to4 Forwarding Scenarios


   It should be noted that when communicating between 6to4 and native
   domains, the 6to4 relays that will be used in the two directions are
   very likely different; routing is highly asymmetric.  Because of
   this, it is not feasible to limit relays from which 6to4 routers may
   accept traffic.


   The first three subsections introduce the most common forms of 6to4
   operation.  Other models are presented in the fourth subsection.


2.1  From 6to4 to 6to4


   6to4 domains always exchange 6to4 traffic directly via IPv4
   tunneling; the endpoint address V4ADDR is derived from 6to4 prefix
   2002:V4ADDR::/48 of the destination.


    .--------.           _----_          .--------.
    |  6to4  |         _( IPv4 )_        |  6to4  |
    | router | <====> ( Internet ) <===> | router |
    '--------'         (_      _)        '--------'
        ^                '----'              ^
        |      Direct tunneling over IPv4    |
        V                                    V
    .--------.                           .-------.
    |  6to4  |                           |  6to4  |
    |  host  |                           |  host  |
    '--------'                           '--------'


                                Figure 1


   It is required that every 6to4 router considers every other 6to4
   router it wants to talk to to be "on-link" (with IPv4 as the
   link-layer).







Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



2.2  From Native to 6to4


   When native domains send traffic to 6to4 prefix 2002:V4ADDR::/48, it
   will be routed to the topologically nearest, advertising (advertising
   route to 2002::/16) 6to4 relay.  The 6to4 relay will tunnel the
   traffic over IPv4 to the corresponding IPv4 address V4ADDR.


   Note that IPv4 address 9.0.0.1 here is just an example of a global
   IPv4 address, and it is assigned to the 6to4 router's
   pseudo-interface.


                                     Closest to
                                 "Native IPv6 node"
    .--------.       _----_        .------------.            .--------.
    | Native |     _( IPv6 )_      | 6to4 relay |  Tunneled  |  6to4  |
    | IPv6   | -> ( Internet ) --> | router     | =========> | router |
    | node   |     (_      _)      '------------'   9.0.0.1  '--------'
    '--------'       '----'  dst_v6=2002:0900:0001::1            |
                                                                 V
                                                             .-------.
                                                             |  6to4  |
                                                             |  host  |
                                                             '--------'


                                Figure 2



2.3  From 6to4 to Native


   6to4 domains send traffic to native domains by tunneling it over IPv4
   to their configured 6to4 relay router, or the closest one found using
   6to4 IPv4 Anycast [3].  The relay will decapsulate the packet and
   forward it to native IPv6 Internet, the same way as any other IPv6
   packet.


   Note that destination IPv6 address in the packet is a non-6to4
   address, and is assumed to be 2001:db8::1 in the example.















Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



                                     Configured
                                        -or-
                                 found by IPv4 Anycast
    .--------.       _----_        .------------.            .--------.
    | Native |     _( IPv6 )_      | 6to4 relay |  Tunneled  |  6to4  |
    | Client | <- ( Internet ) <-- | router     | <========= | router |
    '--------'     (_      _)      '------------' 192.88.99.1'--------'
   2001:db8::1       '----'                     (or configured)   ^
                                                                  |
                                                             .-------.
                                                             |  6to4  |
                                                             | client |
                                                             '--------'


                                Figure 3



2.4  Other Models


   These are more or less special cases of 6to4 operations.  In later
   chapters, unless otherwise stated, only the most generally-used
   models (above) will be considered.


2.4.1  BGP Between 6to4 Routers and Relays


   Section 5.2.2.2 in [1] presents a model where, instead of static
   configuration, BGP [6] is used between 6to4 relay routers and 6to4
   routers (for outgoing relay selection only).


   Going further than [1], if the 6to4 router established a BGP session
   between all the possible 6to4 relays, and advertised its /48 prefix
   to them, the traffic from non-6to4 sites would always come from a
   "known" relay.  Alternatively, the 6to4 relays might advertise the
   more specific 6to4 routes between 6to4 relays.


   Both of these approaches are more or less obviously infeasible due to
   scalability issues.


   Neither of these models are known to be used at the time of writing;
   this is probably caused by the fact that parties that need 6to4 are
   those that are not able to run BGP, and because setting up these
   sessions would be much more work for relay operators.


2.4.2  6to4 as an Optimization Method


   Some sites seem to use 6to4 as an IPv6 connectivity "optimization
   method"; that is, they have also non-6to4 addresses on their nodes
   and border routers, but also employ 6to4 to reach 6to4 sites.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   This is typically done to be able to reach 6to4 destinations by
   direct tunneling and not having to use relays at all.


   These sites also publish both 6to4 and non-6to4 addresses in DNS to
   affect inbound connections; if the source host's default address
   selection [7] works properly, 6to4 sources will use 6to4 addresses to
   reach the site and non-6to4 nodes use non-6to4 addresses.  If this
   behavior of foreign nodes can be assumed, the security threats to
   such sites can be significantly simplified.


2.4.3  6to4 as Tunnel End-Point Addressing Mechanism


   6to4 addresses can also be used only as an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel
   endpoint addressing and routing mechanism.


   An example of this is interconnecting 10 branch offices where nodes
   use non-6to4 addresses.  Only the offices' border routers need to be
   aware of 6to4, and use 6to4 addresses solely for addressing the
   tunnels between different branch offices.  An example is provided in
   the figure below.



    2001:db8:0:10::/60                   2001:db8:0:20::/60
       .--------.                           .--------.
      ( Branch 1 )                         ( Branch 2 )
       '--------'                           '--------'
           |                                     |
       .--------.           _----_          .--------.
       |  6to4  |         _( IPv4 )_        |  6to4  |
       | router | <====> ( Internet ) <===> | router |
       '--------'         (_      _)        '--------'
        9.0.0.1             '----'            8.0.0.2
                              ^^
                              ||
                              vv
                          .--------.
                          |  6to4  | 7.0.0.3
                          | router |
                          '--------'
                              |        2001:db8::/48
                        .-----------.
                       ( Main Office )
                        '-----------'
                              ^
                              |
                              v
                            _----_
                          _( IPv6 )_




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



                         ( Internet )
                          (_      _)
                            '----'




                                Figure 4


   In the figure, the main office sets up two routes:


      2001:db8:0:10::/60 -> 2002:0900:0001::1


      2001:db8:0:20::/60 -> 2002:0800:0002::1


   And a branch office sets up two routes as well:


      2001:db8:0:20::/60 -> 2002:0800:0002::1


      default -> 2002:0700:0003::1


   Thus, the IPv4 Internet is treated as NBMA link-layer for
   interconnecting 6to4-enabled sites; with explicit routes, 6to4
   addressing need not be used in other than the 6to4 edge routers.
   However, note that if a branch office sends a packet to any 6to4
   destination, it will not go through the main office as the 6to4
   2002::/16 route overrides the default route.


   This approach may make addressing and routing slightly easier in some
   circumstances.


3.  Functionalities of 6to4 Network Components


   This section summarizes the main functionalities of the 6to4 network
   components (6to4 routers, and 6to4 relays), and the security checks
   that must be done by them.  The pseudo-code for the security checks
   is provided in Section 5.


   This section summarizes the main functions of the various components
   that are part of a 6to4 network - 6to4 relay routers, and 6to4
   routers.  Refer to Section 1.1 of RFC 3056 [1] for 6to4 related
   definitions.


3.1  6to4 Routers


   The 6to4 routers acts as the border router of a 6to4 domain.  It does
   not have a native, global IPv6 address except in certain special
   cases.  Since the specification [1] uses the term "6to4 router", this
   memo does the same; however, note that we also include a single host




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   with a 6to4 pseudo-interface, which doesn't otherwise act as a
   router, in this definition.  The main functions of the 6to4 router
   are:


   o  Provide IPv6 connectivity to local clients and routers.


   o  Tunnel packets sent to foreign 6to4 addresses to the destination
      6to4 router using IPv4.


   o  Forward packets sent to locally configured 6to4 addresses to the
      6to4 network.


   o  Tunnel packets sent to non-6to4 addresses, to the configured/
      closest-by-anycast 6to4 relay router.


   o  Decapsulate directly received IPv4 packets from foreign 6to4
      addresses.


   o  Decapsulate IPv4 packets received via the relay closest to the
      native IPv6 sources.  Note, it is not easily distinguishable that
      the packet was really received from a 6to4 relay router, not from
      a spoofing third party.


   The 6to4 router should also perform security checks on traffic that
   it will receive from other 6to4 relays, or 6to4 routers, or from
   within the 6to4 site.  These checks include:


   o  Disallow traffic that has private, broadcast or certain specific
      reserved IPv4 addresses (see Section 5.3.1 for details) in
      tunnels, or the matching 6to4 prefixes.


   o  Disallow traffic from 6to4 routers where the IPv4 tunnel source
      address does not match the 6to4 prefix.  (Note that the
      pseudo-interface must pick the IPv4 address corresponding to the
      prefix when encapsulating, or else problems may ensue on e.g.,
      multi-interface routers.)


   o  Disallow traffic where the destination IPv6 address is not a
      global address; in particular, e.g.  link-local addresses, mapped
      addresses and such should not be used.


   o  Disallow traffic transmission to other 6to4 domains through 6to4
      relay router or via some third party 6to4 router.  (To avoid
      transmission to the relay router, the pseudo-interface prefix
      length must be configured correctly to be /16.  Further, to avoid
      the traffic being discarded, 6to4 source addresses must always
      correspond to the IPv4 address encapsulating the traffic.)





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   o  Discard traffic received from other 6to4 domains via a 6to4 relay
      router.


   o  Discard traffic received for prefixes other than your own 6to4
      prefix(es).



3.2  6to4 Relay Routers


   The 6to4 relay router acts as a relay between all 6to4 domains and
   native IPv6 networks; more specifically:


   o  It advertises the reachability of the 2002::/16 prefix to native
      IPv6 routing, thus receiving traffic to all 6to4 addresses from
      closest native IPv6 nodes.


   o  Advertise (if RFC 3068 [3] is implemented) the reachability of
      IPv4 "6to4 relay anycast prefix" (192.88.99.0/24) to IPv4 routing,
      thus receiving some tunneled traffic to native IPv6 nodes from
      6to4 routers.


   o  Decapsulate, and forward packets received from 6to4 addresses
      through tunneling, using normal IPv6 routing.


   o  Tunnels packets received through normal IPv6 routing from native
      addresses, and are destined for 2002::/16, to the corresponding
      6to4 router.


   The 6to4 relay should also perform security checks on traffic that it
   will receive from 6to4 routers, or from native IPv6 nodes.  These
   checks are:


   o  Disallow traffic that has private, broadcast or certain specific
      reserved IPv4 addresses in tunnels, or the matching 6to4 prefixes.


   o  Disallow traffic from 6to4 routers where the IPv4 tunnel source
      address does not match the 6to4 prefix.  (Note that the
      pseudo-interface must pick the IPv4 address corresponding to the
      prefix when encapsulating, or else problems may ensue on e.g.,
      multi-interface routers.)


   o  Disallow traffic where the destination IPv6 address is not a
      global address; in particular, e.g.  link-local addresses, mapped
      addresses and such should not be used.


   o  Discard traffic received from 6to4 routers with the destination as
      a 6to4 prefix.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



4.  Threat Analysis


   This section discusses attacks against the 6to4 network or attacks
   that are caused by the 6to4 network.  The threats are discussed in
   light of the 6to4 deployment models defined in Section 2.


   There are three general types of threats:


   1.  Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, in which a malicious node
       prevents communication between the node under attack and other
       nodes.


   2.  Reflection Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, in which a malicious
       node reflects the traffic off unsuspecting nodes to a particular
       node (node under attack) with the intent of preventing
       communication between the node under attack and other nodes.


   3.  Service theft, in which a malicious node/site/operator may make
       unauthorized use of service.


   6to4 also provides a means for a "meta-threat", traffic laundering,
   in which some other attack is channeled through the third parties to
   make it more difficult to trace the real origin of the attack.  This
   is used in conjunction with other threats, whether specific to 6to4
   or not.


   At this point it is important to reiterate that the attacks are
   possible because:


   1.  6to4 routers have to consider all 6to4 relays, and other 6to4
       routers as "on-link".


   2.  6to4 relays have to consider all 6to4 routers as "on-link".


   3.  Partial implementation of the security checks in the 6to4
       implementation.  It has been discovered that at least a couple of
       major implementations do not implement all the checks.


   The attacks descriptions are classified based on the target of the
   attack:


   1.  Attacks on 6to4 networks.


   2.  Attacks on IPv6 networks.


   3.  Attacks on IPv4 networks.


   Note, one of the mitigation methods listed for various attacks is




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   based on the premise that 6to4 relays could have a feature that may
   be able to limit traffic to/from specific 6to4 sites.  At the time of
   writing this document, such a feature is speculation, and more work
   needs to be done to determine the logistics of such a feature.


4.1  Attacks on 6to4 Networks


   This section describes attacks against 6to4 networks.  Attacks which
   leverage 6to4 networks, but where the ultimate victim is elsewhere
   (e.g., a native IPv6 user, an IPv4 user) are described later in the
   memo.


   6to4 relays and routers are IPv4 nodes, and there is no way for any
   6to4 router to confirm the identity of the IPv4 node from which it is
   receiving traffic -- whether it is a legitimate 6to4 relay or some
   other node.  A 6to4 router has to process traffic from all IPv4
   nodes.  Malicious IPv4 nodes can exploit this property and attack
   nodes within the 6to4 network.


   It is possible to conduct a variety of attacks on the 6to4 nodes.
   These attacks are:


   1.  Attacks with Neighbor Discovery (ND) Messages


   2.  Spoofing traffic to 6to4 nodes


   3.  Reflecting traffic from 6to4 nodes


   4.  Local IPv4 broadcast attack



4.1.1  Attacks with ND Messages


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   Since the 6to4 router assumes all the other 6to4 routers, and 6to4
   relays are "on-link" it is possible to attack the 6to4 router using
   ND messages from any node in the IPv4 network, unless a prior trust
   relationship has been established.


   The attacks are targeting the 6to4 pseudo-interface.  As long as the
   6to4 addresses are not used in the source or destination address, the
   security checks specified by 6to4 take no stance on these packets.
   Typically these use link-local addresses.


   For example, a possible attack could be a Route Advertisement or
   Neighor Advertisement message, crafted specifically to cause havoc;
   the addresses in such a packet could be like:




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   src_v6 = fe80::2           (forged address)
   dst_v6 = fe80::1           (valid or invalid address)
   src_v4 = 8.0.0.1           (valid or forged address)
   dst_v4 = 9.0.0.2           (valid address, matches dst_v6)


   These attacks are exacerbated in case the implementation supports
   more tunneling mechanisms than just 6to4 (or configured tunneling),
   because it is impossible to disambiguate such mechanisms, making it
   difficult to enable strict security checks (see Section 6.1).


   The Neighbor Discovery threats (Redirect DoS, or DoS) are described
   in [8].  Note that all attacks may not be applicable, as the 6to4
   pseudo-interface is assumed not to have a link-layer address (Section
   3.8 RFC 2893 [4]).  However, one should note that the 6to4 router can
   be either a router or host from the Neighbor Discovery perspective.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION METHODS


   The attacks can be mitigated by using any of the following methods:


   o  The usage of ND messages could be prohibited.  It implies that all
      packets using addresses of scope link-local will be silently
      discarded.  Section 3.1 of RFC 3056 [1] leaves scope for future
      uses of link-local address.  This method has its pitfalls - it
      would prohibit any sort of ND message, and thus close the doors on
      development, and use of other ND options.  Whether this is a
      significant problem is another thing.


   o  The 6to4 pseudo-interface could be insulated from the other
      interfaces, particularly the other tunnel interfaces (if any), for
      example using a separate neighbor cache.


   o  If ND messages are needed, either IPsec [4] or an extension of
      SEND could be used [9] to secure packet exchange using link-local
      address; vanilla SEND would not work as the link-layer does not
      have an address -- and IPsec would be rather complex.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   Even though rather simply fixable, this attack is not new as such;
   the same is possible using automatic tunneling [4] or configured
   tunneling (if one is able to spoof source IPv4 address to that of the
   tunnel end-point).


   However, as 6to4 provides open decapsulation, and automatic tunneling
   is being deprecated [10], 6to4 provides an easy means which would not
   exist without 6to4.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



4.1.2  Spoofing Traffic to 6to4 Nodes


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   The attacker - a malicious IPv4 or IPv6 node - can send packets which
   are difficult to trace (e.g., due to spoofing or going through a
   relay) to a 6to4 node.  This can be used e.g., to accomplish a DoS
   attack.


   The IPv6 and IPv4 addresses of the packets will be similar to:


   src_v6 = 2001:db8::1       (forged address)
   dst_v6 = 2002:0900:0002::1 (valid address)
   src_v4 = 8.0.0.1           (valid or forged address)
   dst_v4 = 9.0.0.2           (valid address, matches dst_v6)


   For attacks launched from a native IPv6 node, the src_v4 will be the
   address of the relay through which the traffic will reach the 6to4
   node.  From IPv4 nodes, src_v4 can be either a spoofed or the real
   source address.


   The 6to4 router receives these packets from 8.0.0.1, decapsulates
   them, discards the IPv4 header containing the source address 8.0.0.1
   and processes them as normal (the attacker has guessed or obtained
   "dst_v6" using one of a number of techniques).


   This is a DoS attack on 6to4 nodes.


   This attack is similar to ones shown in [11].


   EXTENSIONS


   Replies to the traffic will be directed to the src_v6 address,
   resulting in 6to4 nodes in participating in a reflection DoS.  This
   attack is described in more detail in Section 4.2.3.  That is, the
   replies (e.g., TCP SYN ACK, TCP RST, ICMPv6 Echo Reply, input sent to
   UDP echo service, ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable, etc.) are sent to
   the victim (src_v6), above.  All the traces from the original
   attacker (src_v4) have been discarded.  These return packets will go
   through a relay.


   Certain 6to4 networks may have a trivial ACL (Access Control List)
   based firewall that allows traffic to pass through if it comes from
   particular source(s).  Such a firewalling mechanism can be bypassed
   by address spoofing.  This attack can therefore be used for trivial
   ACL avoidance as well.  These attacks might be hampered by the fact
   that the replies from the 6to4 node to the spoofed address will be
   lost.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   The Denial-of-Service attack based on traffic spoofing is not new;
   the only twists come from the fact that traces of an attack are more
   easily lost, and that spoofing the IPv6 address is possible even to
   those who are unable to do so in their current networks.  The 6to4
   router typically does not log IPv4 addresses (as they would be
   treated as L2 addresses) and thus the source of the attack (if
   launched from an IPv4 node) is lost.  Since traces to the src_v4
   address can easily be lost, these attacks can also be be launched
   from IPv4 nodes whose connection is ingress-filtered.


   However, often this is not a real factor, as usually the attackers
   are just zombies and real attackers may not even care if the
   unspoofed source address is discovered.


   Malicious native IPv6 nodes could be caught easily if ingress
   filtering was enabled everywhere in the IPv6 Internet.


   These attacks are easy to perform, but the extent of harm is limited:


   o  For every packet sent, at most one reply packet is generated:
      there is no amplification factor.


   o  Attack packets, if initiated from an IPv6 node, will pass through
      choke point(s), namely a 6to4 relay; in addition to physical
      limitations, these could implement some form of 6to4-site-specific
      traffic limiting.


   On the other hand, a variety of factors can make the attack serious:


   o  The attacker may have the ability to choose the relay, and he
      might employ the ones best suited for the attacks.  Also, many
      relays use 192.88.99.1 [3] as the source address making tracing
      even more difficult (also see Section 4.2.6).


   o  The relay's IPv4 address may be used as a source address for these
      attacks, potentially causing a lot of complaints or other actions
      as the relay might seem to be the source of the attack (see
      Section 4.2.6 for more).


   Some of the mitigation methods for such attacks are:


   1.  Ingress filtering in the native IPv6 networks to prevent packets
       with spoofed IPv6 source being transmitted.  It would, thus, make
       it easy to identify the source of the attack.  Unfortunately,
       this would depend on significant (or even complete) ingress
       filtering everywhere in other networks; while this is highly




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



       desirable, it may also be practically unfeasible.


   2.  Security checks in the 6to4 relay.  The 6to4 relay must drop
       traffic (from the IPv6 Internet) that has 6to4 addresses as
       source address, see Section 5 for more.  This has very little
       cost.


   However, these mitigation methods do not address the case of IPv4
   node sending encapsulated IPv6 packets.


   There exists no simple way to prevent such attacks, and longer term
   solutions like ingress filtering [12] or itrace [13] would have to be
   deployed in both IPv6 and IPv4 networks to help identify the source
   of the attacks.  A total penetration is likely impossible to achieve.
   (Note that itrace work has been discontinued, as of this writing in
   July 2004.)


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   Traffic spoofing is not a new phenomenon in IPv4 or IPv6.  6to4 just
   makes it easier: anyone can, regardless of ingress filtering, spoof a
   native IPv6 address to a 6to4 node, even if "maximal security" would
   be implemented and deployed.  Losing trails is also easier.


   Therefore, depending on how much one assumes ingress filtering is
   deployed for IPv4 and IPv6, this could be considered to be a very
   serious issue, or close to irrelevant compared to the IP spoofing
   capabilities without 6to4.


4.1.3  Reflecting Traffic to 6to4 Nodes


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   Spoofed traffic (as described in Section 4.2.2) may be sent to native
   IPv6 nodes with the aim of performing a reflection attack against
   6to4 nodes.


   The spoofed traffic is sent to a native IPv6 node, either from an
   IPv4 node (through a 6to4 relay), or from a native IPv6 node (unless
   ingress filtering has been deployed).  With the former, the sent
   packets would look like:


   src_v6 = 2002:1234:1234::1 (forged address of the target 6to4 node)
   dst_v6 = 2002:0900:0002::1 (valid address)
   src_v4 = 8.0.0.1           (valid or invalid address)
   dst_v4 = 9.0.0.2           (valid address, matches dst_v6)


   One should note that an attack through the relay is prevented if the




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   relay implements proper decapsulation security checks (see Section 5
   for details) unless the IPv4 node can spoof the source address to
   match src_v6.  Similarly, the attack from native IPv6 nodes could be
   prevented by global ingress filtering deployment.


   These attacks can be initiated by native IPv6, IPv4, or 6to4 nodes.


   EXTENSIONS


   A distributed Reflection DoS can be performed if a large number nodes
   are involved in sending spoofed traffic with the same src_v6.


   Malicious 6to4 nodes can also (try to) initiate this attack by
   bouncing traffic off 6to4 nodes in other 6to4 sites.  However this
   attack may not be possible as the 6to4 router (in the site from which
   the attack is being launched) will filter packets with forged source
   address (with security checks mentioned in Section 5), and thus the
   attack will be prevented.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   The reverse traffic in this case are replies to the messages received
   by the 6to4 nodes.  The attacker has less control on the packet type
   in this case, and this would inhibit certain types of attacks.  For
   example, flooding a 6to4 node with TCP SYN packets will not be
   possible (but e.g., a SYN-ACK or RST would be).


   These attacks may be mitigated in various ways:


   o  Implementation of ingress filtering by the IPv4 service providers.
      It would prevent forging of the src_v4 address, and would help in
      closing down on the culprit IPv4 nodes.  Note that, it will be
      difficult to shut down the attack if a large number of IPv4 nodes
      are involved.


      These attacks may be also be stopped at the 6to4 sites if the
      culprit src_v4 address is identified, and if it is constant, by
      filtering traffic from this address.  Note that it would be
      difficult to implement this method, if appropriate logging is not
      done by the 6to4 router, or if a large number of 6to4 nodes, and/
      or a large number of IPv4 nodes are participating in the attack.


      Unfortunately, as many IPv4 service providers don't implement
      ingress filtering, for whatever reasons, this may not be a
      satisfactory resolution.


   o  Implementation of ingress filtering by all IPv6 service providers
      would eliminate this attack, because src_v6 could not be spoofed




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



      to be a 6to4 address.  However, expecting this to happen may not
      be practical.


   o  Proper implementation of security checks (see Section 5) both at
      the 6to4 relays and routers would eliminate the attack, when
      launched from an IPv4 node, except when the IPv4 source address
      was also spoofed -- but then the attacker would have been able to
      just attack the ultimate destination directly.


   o  Rate limiting traffic at the 6to4 relays.  In a scenario where
      most of the traffic is passing through few 6to4 relays, these
      relays can implement traffic rate-limiting features, and
      rate-limit the traffic from 6to4 sites.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   This particular attack can be mitigated by proper implementation of
   security checks (which is quite straightforward) and ingress
   filtering; where ingress filtering is not implemented, it's typically
   easier to attack directly than through reflection -- unless "traffic
   laundering" is an explicit goal in the attack.  Therefore, this
   attack does not seem very serious.


4.1.4  Local IPv4 Broadcast Attack


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   This threat is applicable if the 6to4 router does not check whether
   the IPv4 address it tries to send encapsulated IPv6 packets to a
   local broadcast address, or a multicast address.


   This threat is described in the specification [1], and implementing
   the checks eliminates this threat.  However, as this has not been
   widely implemented, it is included here regardless for completeness.


   There practically two kinds of attacks: where a local 6to4 user tries
   to send packets to the address corresponding to the broadcast
   address, or when someone is able to do that remotely.


   In the first option, assume that 9.0.0.255 is the 6to4 router's
   broadcast address.  After receiving the packet with a destionation
   address like "2002:0900:00ff::bbbb" from a local 6to4 node, if the
   router doesn't check the destination address for subnet broadcast, it
   would send the encapsulated protocol-41 packet to 9.0.0.255.  This
   would be received by all nodes in the subnet, and the responses would
   be directed to the 6to4 router.


   Malicious sites may also embed forged 6to4 addresses in the DNS, use




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   of which by a 6to4 node will result in a local broadcast by the 6to4
   router.  One way to perform this attack would be to send an HTML mail
   containing a link to an invalid URL (for example, http://
   [2002:0900:00ff::bbbb]/index.html) to all users in a 6to4 technology
   based network.  Opening of the mail simultaneously would result in a
   broadcast storm.


   The second kind of attack is more complex: the attack can be
   initiated by IPv4 nodes not belonging to the local network as long as
   they can send traffic with invalid (for example 2002:0900:00ff::bbbb)
   source address.  The 6to4 router has to respond to the traffic by
   sending ICMPv6 packets back to the source, for example Hop Limit
   Exceeded or Destination Unreachable.  The packet would be as follows:


   src_v6 = 2002:0800:00ff::bbbb (broadcast address of the router)
   dst_v6 = 2002:0800:0001::0001 (valid non-existent address)


   This is a DoS attack.


   EXTENSIONS


   The attacks could also be directed at non-local broadcast addresses,
   but these would be so-called "IPv4 directed broadcasts", which have
   been (luckily enough) already been extensively blocked in the
   Internet.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   The attack is based on the premise that the 6to4 router has to send a
   packet to an IPv6 address that embeds an invalid IPv4 address.  Such
   an attack is easily thwarted by ensuring that the 6to4 router does
   not transmit packets to invalid IPv4 addresses.  Specifically traffic
   should not be sent to broadcast or multicast IPv4 addresses.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   The first threat is similar to what's already possible with IPv4, but
   IPv6 does not have broadcast addresses.


   The second, a more complex threat, is similarly also available in
   IPv4.


   In consequence, the security does not seem to be significantly worse
   than with IPv4, and even that is restricted to the site(s) with 6to4
   implementations which haven't been secured as described in Section 5.







Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



4.2  Attacks on Native IPv6 Internet


   This section describes attacks against native IPv6 Internet which
   leverage 6to4 architecture somehow.  Attacks against 6to4 nodes were
   described in the previous section.


   Native IPv6 nodes can be accessed by 6to4 and IPv4 nodes through the
   6to4 relay routers.  Thus the 6to4 relays play a crucial role in any
   attack on native IPv6 nodes by IPv4 nodes or 6to4 nodes.


   6to4 relays have only one significant security check they must
   perform for general safety: when decapsulating IPv4 packets, check
   that 2002:V4ADDR::/48 and V4ADDR match in the source address.  If
   this is not done, several threats become more serious; in the
   following analysis, it is assumed that such checks are implemented.


   6to4 relay should not relay packets between 6to4 addresses.  In
   particular, packets decapsulated from 6to4 routers should not be
   encapsulated again towards 6to4 routers, as described in rules in
   Section 5.  Similarly, packets with 6to4 source and destination
   address sent from IPv6 nodes should not be relayed.  It is not clear
   whether this kind of check is typically implemented.  The attacks
   described below assume that such checks are not implemented.


4.2.1  Attacks with ND Messages


   These attacks are the same as employed against 6to4 routers as
   described in Section 4.1.1.


4.2.2  Spoofing Traffic to Native IPv6 node


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   The attacker - a malicious IPv4 or 6to4 node - can send packets with
   spoofed (or not spoofed) 6to4 source address to a native IPv6 node to
   accomplish a DoS attack.


   The threat is similar as the one involving 6to4 routers as described
   in Section 4.1.2.


   The difference here is that the attack is initiated by IPv4 nodes, or
   6to4 nodes.  The source IPv6 address may or may not be spoofed.
   Note, as mentioned above, the relay is assumed to correlate source
   IPv4 address with the address embedded in the source IPv6 address
   during decapsulation.  A side effect is that all the spoofed traffic
   will have a 6to4 source address.


   EXTENSIONS




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Spoofed traffic may also be sent to native IPv6 nodes by either other
   native IPv6 nodes, or 6to4 nodes, or malicious IPv4 nodes to conduct
   Reflection DoS on either native IPv6 nodes or 6to4 nodes.


   Certain native IPv6 networks may have a trivial ACL (Access Control
   List) based firewall that allows traffic to pass through if it comes
   from particular source(s).  Such a firewalling mechanism can be
   bypassed by address spoofing.  This attack can therefore be used for
   trivial ACL avoidance as well.  These attacks might be hampered by
   the fact that the replies from the 6to4 node to the spoofed address
   will be lost.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   The Denial-of-Service attack based on traffic spoofing is not new;
   the only twist comes from the fact that traces of an attack are more
   easily lost.  The 6to4 relay typically does not log IPv4 addresses
   (as they would be treated as L2 addresses) and thus the source of the
   attack (if launched from an IPv4 node) is lost.  Since traces to the
   src_v4 address can easily be lost, these attacks can also be be
   launched from IPv4 nodes whose connection is ingress-filtered.


   These attacks might be not be very easy to perform, and might be
   hampered because of:


   o  It might be difficult to launch such attacks from 6to4 nodes
      because even if the 6to4 routers allow spoofing of the source IPv6
      address, the 6to4 relay would check if source V4ADDR is same as
      the one embedded in the source IPv6 address.  Thus, 6to4 nodes
      will be forced to use the correct IPv6 prefix while lauching
      attack, and it is easy to close such attacks.


   o  Packets may pass through choke point(s), namely a 6to4 relay.  In
      addition to physical limitations, there could be some sort of
      traffic rate limiting mechanisms which may be implemented, and it
      could tone down the attack.


   o  For every packet sent, at most one reply packet is generated:
      there is no amplification factor.


   Some of the mitigation methods for such attacks are:


   1.  Ingress filtering in the IPv4 Internet to prevent packets with
       spoofed IPv4 source being transmitted.  As the relay checks that
       the 6to4 address embeds the IPv4 address, no spoofing can be
       achieved done unless IPv4 addresses can be spoofed.  However,
       this would probably be an unfeasible requirement.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   2.  Security checks in the 6to4 relay.  The 6to4 relay must drop
       traffic (from 6to4 nodes, or IPv4 nodes) that has non-6to4
       addresses as source address, or where the source IPv4 address
       does not match the address embebdded in the source IPv6 address.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   Compared to Section 4.1.2, which is more serious, this threat appears
   to be slightly more manageable.  If the relays perform proper
   decapsulation checks, the spoofing can only be achived, to a 6to4
   source address, when IPv4 address is spoofable as well.


4.2.3  Reflecting Traffic to Native IPv6 nodes


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   These reflection attacks are similar to the one involving 6to4
   routers as described in Section 4.1.3.  Traffic may be reflected off
   native IPv6 nodes, or 6to4 nodes.  The attack can be initiated by
   either:


   o  Native IPv6 nodes.  These nodes can send invalid traffic with
      spoofed native IPv6 addresses to valid 6to4 nodes.  Replies from
      the 6to4 nodes are part of a reflection attack.


   o  IPv4 nodes.  These nodes can send traffic with native IPv6 source
      addresses (encapsulated by the IPv4 node itself into a protocol-41
      packet) to 6to4 nodes.  Replies from the 6to4 nodes are part of a
      reflection attack.


   o  6to4 nodes.  These nodes can perform similar attacks to the ones
      by IPv4 nodes, but that would require spoofing of the source
      address at the 6to4 site before encapsulation; that is likely to
      be difficult.


   When launched from a native IPv6 node, the traffic goes through 6to4
   relays twice, both after and before the reflection; when launched
   from a 6to4/IPv4 node, the traffic goes through a relay only after
   the reflection.


   EXTENSIONS


   A distributed Reflection DoS can be performed if a large number of
   native IPv6 nodes or IPv4/6to4 nodes are involved in sending spoofed
   traffic with the same source IPv6 address.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Some of the mitigation methods for such attacks are:


   1.  Attacks from the native IPv6 nodes could be stopped by
       implementing ingress filtering in the IPv6 Internet; hopefully
       this will become commonplace, but past experience of IPv4 ingress
       filtering deployment (or lack thereof) does not promise much.


   2.  Two measures are needed to stop or mitigate the attacks from IPv4
       nodes: 1) Implementing ingress filtering in the IPv4 internet,
       and 2) logging IPv4 source address in the 6to4 router.


   3.  Attacks from 6to4 nodes in other sites can be stopped if the 6to4
       router in those sites implements egress filtering.  This could be
       done by those sites, but the sites who are most likely to be
       abused are typically also most likely to be neglecting to
       installing appropriate filtering at their edges.


   4.  The traffic passes through one or two relays, and traffic rate
       limiting in the 6to4 relays might help tone down the reflection
       attack.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   Even thought there are means to mitigate the attack, it is still
   rather efficient, especially when used by native IPv6 nodes with
   spoofed addresses.  Using 6to4 relays and routers could easily take
   down the 6to4 relay system and/or provide an easy means for traffic
   laundering.  However, if the intent of the attack is just to DoS the
   victim, it can be achieved more smoothly by doing it directly (as the
   source address spoofing was available as well).


   Therefore, the threat seems to be higher to the availability and
   stability of the 6to4 relay system itself than to native IPv6
   Internet.


4.2.4  Local IPv4 Broadcast Attack


   This attack is similar to the ones employed against 6to4 routers as
   described in Section 4.1.4.  There are slight differences with regard
   to the source of the attacks.  This attack can be initiated by:


   o  Native IPv6 nodes that may send traffic to the relay's subnet
      broadcast address.


   o  IPv4 nodes that may send traffic with spoofed source IP address
      (to be the relay's broadcast address) to elicit replies (e.g.,
      ICMPv6 Hop Limit Exceeded messages) from the 6to4 relay to its
      local nodes.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   The first is more dangerous than in Section 4.1.4 because it can be
   initiated by any IPv6 node (which is allowed to use the relay, that
   is), not limited to local users.


   The second is trickier and not really useful.  For it to succeed, the
   relay would have to accept native source addresses over the 6to4
   pseudo-interface (but we did not assume this check was implemented),
   as if coming from another relay, and trigger an ICMPv6 message to the
   relay's local IPv4 subnet.  The former method is more lucrative.


   EXTENSIONS


   None.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   The threat is restricted to the relay's local subnet, and is fixed by
   tightening the 6to4 security checks.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   This scenario is caused by 6to4, but fortunately, the issue is not
   serious.


4.2.5  Theft of Service


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   The 6to4 relay administrators would often want to use some policy to
   limit the use of the relay to specific 6to4 sites and/or specific
   IPv6 sites.


   The policy control is usually done by applying restrictions to where
   the routing information for 2002::/16 and/or 192.188.99.0/24 (if the
   anycast address used [3]) will spread.


   Some users may be able to use the service regardless of these
   controls, by:


   o  Configuring the address of the relay using its IPv4 address
      instead of 192.88.99.1, or


   o  Using the Routing header to route IPv6 packets to reach specific
      6to4 relays.  (Some other routing tricks like using static routes
      may also be used.)


   EXTENSIONS





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   None.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   Attempts to use the relay's IPv4 address instead of 192.88.99.1 can
   be mitigated in the following ways:


   1.  IPv4 domains should prevent usage of the actual IPv4 address of
       the relay instead of 192.88.99.1.


   2.  Usage of access lists in the 6to4 relay to limit access.  This is
       only feasible if the number of IP networks the relay is supposed
       to serve is relatively low.


   3.  The 6to4 relay should filter out arriving tunneled packets with
       protocol 41 (IPv6) which do not have the the 192.88.99.1 as the
       destination address.


   The other threat of using routing tricks in the IPv6 networks to
   reach the 6to4 relay has similar solutions:


   1.  Usage of access lists in the relay to limit access.


   2.  Filtering out the packets with a routing header (may have other
       implications).


   3.  Monitoring the source addresses going through the relay, to
       detect e.g.  peers setting up static routes.


   Routing Header is not specific to 6to4, the main things one could do
   here with it would be to select the relay; some generic threats about
   Routing Header use are described in [11].


   As this threat does not have implications on other than the
   organization providing 6to4 relay, it is not analyzed any further.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   These threats are specific to 6to4 relays (or in general, anycast
   services), and do not exist in networks without 6to4.


4.2.6  Relay Operators Seen as Source of Abuse


   ATTACK DESCRIPTION


   There are several attacks which use 6to4 relays to anonymize the
   traffic; this often results in packets being tunneled from the relay
   to a supposedly-6to4 site.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   However, as was already pointed out in Section 4.2, the IPv4 source
   address used by the relay could, cursorily looking, be seen as the
   source of these "protocol-41" attacks.


   This could cause a number of concerns for the operators deploying
   6to4 relay service.  For example:


   o  Getting contacted a lot (via email, phone, fax, or lawyers) on
      suspected "abuse",


   o  Getting the whole IPv4 address range rejected as a source of abuse
      or spam, causing outage to other operations as well, or


   o  Causing the whole IPv4 address range to be to be blacklisted in
      some "spammer databases", if the relay would be used for those
      purposes.


   This threat seems slightly similar (but more generic) to the outburst
   of SMTP abuse caused by open relays.


   EXTENSIONS


   None.


   THREAT ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS/MITIGATION METHODS


   This problem can be avoided (or really, "made someone else's
   problem") by using the 6to4 anycast address in 192.88.99.0/24 as the
   source address: blacklisting or rejecting that should not cause
   problems to the other operations.


   Further, when someone is filing complaints to the owner of
   192.88.99.0/24, depending on which registry they are querying, they
   might get, for example:


   o  Knowledge that this is a special IANA address block, with no real
      contact person,


   o  Knowledge that this is a special address block for RFC 3068, or


   o  Knowledge that this is a special address block for RFC 3068, and
      that there are multiple entries in the database by relay
      operators.


   Any of these, at least when processed by a human, should make one
   learn that the 6to4 relay is in fact innocent.  Of course, this could
   result in these reports going to the closest anycast 6to4 relay as
   well, which in fact had nothing to do with the incident.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   However, the wide-spread usage of 192.88.99.1 as the source address
   may make it more difficult to disambiguate the relays, which might be
   a useful feature for debugging purposes.


   COMPARISON TO SITUATION WITHOUT 6to4


   This threat is caused by 6to4 deployment, but can be avoided, at
   least in the short-term, by using the use of 192.88.99.1 as the
   source address.


4.3  Attacks on IPv4 Internet


   There are two types of attacks on the IPv4 internet - spoofed
   traffic, and reflection.  They can be initiated by native IPv6 nodes,
   6to4 nodes, and IPv4 nodes.


   Attacks initiated by IPv4 nodes that send spoofed traffic that will
   not utilize the 6to4 infrastructure are considered out of scope of
   this document.  6to4 infrastructure may be utilized in reflection
   attacks that are initiated by IPv4 nodes.


   It is difficult for these attacks to be effective as the traffic sent
   out will be IPv6-in-IPv4.  Such traffic will be rejected by most IPv4
   nodes unless they have implemented some sort of IPv6-in-IPv4
   tunneling.


4.4  Summary of the Attacks


   Columns:


   o  Section number.  The section that describes the attack.


   o  Attack name.


   o  Initiator.  The node that initiates the attack.


      *  I_4 - IPv4 node


      *  I_6 - native IPv6 node


      *  6to4 - 6to4 node


      *  * - All of the above


   o  Victim.  The victim node


      *  I_4 - IPv4 node





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



      *  I_6 - native IPv6 node


      *  6to4 - 6to4 node


      *  Relay - 6to4 relay


      *  Router - 6to4 router


   o  ToA.  Type of Attack


      *  D - DoS


      *  R - Reflection DoS


      *  T - Theft of Service


   o  Fix.  Specified who is responsible for fixing the attack.


      *  6 - The 6to4 developer and/or operator can completely mitigate
         this attack.


      *  6* - The 6to4 developer and/or operator can partially mitigate
         this attack.


      *  E - This threat cannot be fixed by the 6to4 developer or the
         6to4 operator.


   Summary of attacks on a 6to4 network:


      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | Sec   | Attack name          |Initiator| Victim   | ToA | Fix |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.1.1 | Attacks with ND      |  I_4    |  Router  |  D  |  6  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.1.2 | Spoofing Traffic     | I_4,I_6 |   6to4   |  D  |  E  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.1.3 | Reflection Attacks   |   *     |   6to4   |  R  |  6* |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.1.4 | Local IPv4 Broadcast |   *     |  Router  |  D  |  6  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+


                                Figure 9










Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Summary of attacks on the native IPv6 internet:


      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | Sec   | Attack name          |Initiator|  Victim  | ToA | Fix |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.1 | Attacks with ND      |   I_4   |  Relay   |  D  |  6  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.2 | Spoofing Traffic     | I_4,6to4|    I_6   |  D  |  6* |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.3 | Reflection Attacks   |    *    |    I_6   |  R  |  6* |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.4 | Local IPv4 Broadcast |    *    |  Relay   |  D  |  6  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.5 | Theft of Service     |  6to4   |  Relay   |  T  |  6  |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | 4.2.6 | Relay Operators ...  |    -    |    -     |  D  |  1) |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+


                               Figure 10


   Notes:


   1) This attack is a side-effect of the other attacks, and thus does
   not have any Initiator, Victim, and Fix.  It is a Denial of Service
   attack not on the network but on the organization in-charge of the
   relay.


   Summary of attacks on IPv4 internet:


      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      | Sec   | Attack name          |Initiator|  Victim  | ToA | Fix |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      |  4.3  | Spoofing Traffic     |    *    |    I_4   |  D  |  6* |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+
      |  4.3  | Reflection Attacks   |    *    |    I_4   |  R  |  6* |
      +-------+----------------------+---------+----------+-----+-----+


                               Figure 11



5.  Implementing Proper Security Checks in 6to4


   In this section, several ways to implement the security checks
   required or implied by the specification [1] or augmented by this
   memo are described.  These do not, in general, protect against the
   majority of the threats listed above in the "Threat Analysis"
   section.  They're just prerequisites for a relatively safe and simple
   6to4 implementation.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Note that in in general, the 6to4 router or relay does not know
   whether it is acting as a router or relay.  It would be possible to
   include a toggle to specify the behaviour, to be used e.g., when the
   interface is brought up, but at least in February 2004, no
   implementations were known to do that.  Due to that, the checks are
   described as one -- which works independent of whether the node is a
   router or relay.


5.1  Encapsulating IPv6 into IPv4


   The checks described in this section are to be performed when
   encapsulating IPv6 into IPv4.


   The encapsulation rules are mainly designed to keep one from
   "shooting yourself on the foot" -- for example, the source address
   check verifies that the packet will be acceptable to the
   decapsulator, or the sanity checks ensure that addresses derived from
   private addresses are not used (which would be equally unacceptable).


    src_v6 and dst_v6 MUST pass ipv6-sanity checks (see below) else drop
    if prefix (src_v6) == 2002::/16
        ipv4 address embedded in src_v6 MUST match src_v4
     else if prefix (dst_v6) == 2002::/16
            dst_v4 SHOULD NOT be assigned to the router
    else
        drop
            /* we somehow got a native-native ipv6 packet */
    fi
    accept



5.2  Decapsulating IPv4 into IPv6


   The checks described in this section are to be performed when
   decapsulating IPv4 into IPv6.  They will be performed in both the
   6to4 router and relay.
















Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



    src_v4 and dst_v4 MUST pass ipv4-sanity checks, else drop
    src_v6 and dst_v6 MUST pass ipv6-sanity checks, else drop
    if prefix (dst_v6) == 2002::/16
        ipv4 address embedded in dst_v6 MUST match dst_v4
            if prefix (src_v6) == 2002::/16
                ipv4 address embedded in src_v6 MUST match src_v4
                dst_v4 SHOULD be assigned to the router
            fi
    elif prefix (src_v6) == 2002::/16
        ipv4 address embedded in src_v6 MUST match src_v4
        dst_v4 SHOULD be assigned to the router (see notes below)
    else
        drop
            /* the we somehow got a native-native ipv6 packet */
    fi
    accept



5.3  IPv4 and IPv6 Sanity Checks


   The encapsulation and decapsulation checks included certain sanity
   checks for both IPv4 and IPv6.  These are described here in detail.


5.3.1  IPv4


   IPv4 address MUST be a global unicast address, as required by the
   6to4 specification.  The disallowed addresses include those defined
   in [14], and others widely used and known not to be global.  These
   are:


   o  0.0.0.0/8 (the system has no address assigned yet)


   o  10.0.0.0/8 (private)


   o  127.0.0.0/8 (loopback)


   o  172.16.0.0/12 (private)


   o  192.168.0.0/16 (private)


   o  169.254.0.0/16 (IANA Assigned DHCP link-local)


   o  224.0.0.0/4 (multicast)


   o  240.0.0.0/4 (reserved and broadcast)


   In addition, the address MUST NOT be any of the system's broadcast
   addresses.  This is especially important if the implementation is




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   made so that it can:


   o  receive and process encapsulated IPv4 packets arriving at its
      broadcast addresses, or


   o  send encapsulated IPv4 packets to one of its broadcast addresses.



5.3.2  IPv6


   IPv6 address MUST NOT be:


   o  0::/16 (compatible, mapped addresses, loopback, unspecified, ...)


   o  fe80::/10 (link-local)


   o  fec0::/10 (site-local)


   o  ff00::/8 (any multicast)


   Note: only link-local multicast would be strictly required, but it is
   believed that multicast with 6to4 will not be feasible, so it has
   been disallowed as well.


   In addition, it MUST be checked that equivalent 2002:V4ADDR::/48
   checks, where V4ADDR is any of the above IPv4 addresses, will not be
   passed.


5.3.3  Optional Ingress Filtering


   In addition, the implementation in the 6to4 router may perform some
   form of ingress filtering (e.g.  Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding
   checks).  For example, if the 6to4 router has multiple interfaces, of
   which some are "internal", receiving either IPv4 or IPv6 packets with
   source address belonging to any of these internal networks from the
   Internet might be disallowed.


   If these checks are implemented, and are enabled by default, it's
   recommended that there is a toggle to disable them if needed.


5.3.4  Notes About the Checks


   The rule "dst_v4 SHOULD be assigned to the router" is not needed if
   the 6to4 router implementation only accepts and processes
   encapsulated IPv4 packets arriving its unicast IPv4 addresses, and
   when destination address is known to be a local broadcast address, it
   does not try to encapsulate and send packets to it.  (see Section
   4.1.4, and Section 4.2.4 about this threat).




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Some checks, especially the IPv4/IPv6 Sanity Checks, could be at
   least partially implementable with system-level access lists, if one
   would like to avoid placing too many restrictions in the 6to4
   implementation itself.  This depends on how many hooks for the access
   lists are in place.  In practice it seems that this could not be done
   effectively enough unless the access list mechanism is able to parse
   the encapsulated packets.


6.  Issues in 6to4 Implementation and Use


   This section tries to give an overview of some of the problems 6to4
   implementations are faced with, and the kind of generic problems the
   6to4 users could come up with.


6.1  Implementation Considerations with Automatic Tunnels


   There is a problem with multiple transition mechanisms if strict
   security checks are implemented.  This may vary a bit from
   implementation to implementation.


   Consider three mechanisms using automatic tunneling: 6to4, ISATAP
   [15] and Automatic Tunneling using Compatible Addresses [4]
   (currently removed [10] but typically still supported).  All of these
   use IP-IP (protocol 41) [16] IPv4 encapsulation with, more or less, a
   pseudo-interface.


   When a router, which has any two of these enabled, receives an IPv4
   encapsulated IPv6 packet:


   src_v6 = 2001:db8::1
   dst_v6 = 2002:1010:1010::2
   src_v4 = 10.0.0.1
   dst_v4 = 20.20.20.20


   What can it do?  How should it decide which transition mechanism this
   belongs to; there is no "transition mechanism number" in IPv6 or IPv4
   header to signify this.  (This can also be viewed as a flexibility
   benefit.)


   Without any kind of security checks (in any of implemented methods)
   these often just "work" as the mechanisms aren't differentiated but
   handled in "one big lump".


   Configured tunneling [4] does not suffer from this as it is
   point-to-point, and based on src_v6/dst_v6 pairs of both IPv4 and
   IPv6 addresses it can be deduced which logical tunnel interface is in
   the question.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Solutions for this include 1) not using more than one automatic
   tunneling mechanism in a node or 2) binding different mechanisms to
   different IPv4 addresses.


6.2  A Different Model for 6to4 Deployment


   Even though this was already discussed in Section 4.1.2, it bears
   some additional elaboration as it was the only problem which cannot
   be even partially solved using the current deployment model -- but
   there are some mitigation methods.


   That is, 6to4 routers receive traffic from non-6to4 ("native")
   sources via 6to4 relays.  6to4 routers have no way of matching IPv4
   source address of the relay with non-6to4 IPv6 address of the source.
   Consequently, anyone can spoof any non-6to4 IPv6 address he wants by
   sending traffic, encapsulated, directly to 6to4 routers.


   It could be possible to turn the deployment assumptions of 6to4
   around a bit to eliminate some threats caused by untrusted 6to4
   relays.  That is:


   o  Every dual-stack site (or even ISP) would be required to have
      their own 6to4 relay.  (This assumes that IPv6-only is so long
      away that 6to4 would be hopefully retired at that point.)  That
      is, there would not be third-party relays, and 2002::/16 and
      192.88.99.0/24 routes would not need to be advertised globally,
      and


   o  The security implications of 6to4 use could be pushed back to the
      level of trust inside the site or ISP (or their acceptable use
      policies) -- this is something that the sites and ISP's should be
      familiar with already.


   However, this has a number of problems:


   This model would shift the majority of burden of supporting 6to4 to
   IPv6 sites which don't employ or use 6to4 at all, i.e., "those who
   deploy proper native dual-stack".  It could be argued that the
   deployment pain should be borne by 6to4 users, not the others.


   The main advantage of 6to4 is easy deployment and free relays.  This
   would require that everyone the 6to4 sites wish to communicate with
   implement these measures.


   The model would not fix the "relay spoofing problem", unless
   everybody deployed also 6to4 addresses on the nodes (alongside with
   native addresses, if necessary), which in turn would change 6to4 to
   operate without relays completely.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



7.  Security Considerations


   This draft discusses security considerations of 6to4.


   Even if proper checks are implemented, there are a large number of
   different kind of security threats; these threats are analyzed in
   Section 4.


   There are mainly three classes of potential problem sources:


   1.  6to4 routers not being able to identify whether relays are
       legitimate,


   2.  Wrong or impartially implemented 6to4 router or relay security
       checks,


   3.  6to4 architecture used to participate in DoS or reflected DoS
       attacks, or made to participate in "packet laundering", i.e.,
       making another attack harder to trace, or


   4.  6to4 relays being subject to "administrative abuse", e.g., theft
       of service, or being seen as a source of abuse.


   The first is the toughest problem, still under research.  The second
   can be fixed by ensuring the correctness of implementations; this is
   important.  The third is also a very difficult problem, and
   impossible to solve completely -- therefore it is important to be
   able to analyze whether this results in a significant increase of
   threats.  The fourth problem seems to have feasible solutions.


   These are analyzed in detail in Threat Analysis, in Section 4.


8.  IANA Considerations


   This memo makes no requet to IANA.  (RFC-editor note: please remove
   this section on publication.)


9.  Acknowledgments


   Some issues were first brought up by Itojun Hagino in [17], and Alain
   Durand introduced one specific problem at IETF51 in August 2001
   (though there was some discussion on the list prior to that); these
   gave the author the push to start looking into the details of
   securing 6to4.


   Alexey Kuznetsov brought up the implementation problem with IPv6
   martian checks.  Christian Huitema formulated the rules that rely on
   6to4 relays using only anycast.  Keith Moore brought up the point




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   about reduced flexibility.  Brian Carpenter, Tony Hain and Vladislav
   Yasevich are acknowledged for lengthy discussions.  Alain Durand
   reminded of relay spoofing problems.  Brian Carpenter reminded of the
   BGP-based 6to4 router model.  Christian Huitema gave a push to a more
   complete threat analysis.  Itojun Hagino spelled out the operators'
   fears about 6to4 relay abuse.  Rob Austein brought up the idea of a
   different 6to4 deployment model.


   In the latter phase, especially discussions with Christian Huitema,
   Brian Carpenter and Alain Durand were helpful when improving the
   document.


   David Malone, Iljitsch van Beijnum, and Tim Chown gave feedback on
   the document.


10.  References


10.1  Normative References


   [1]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
        Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.


   [2]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.


   [3]  Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC
        3068, June 2001.


10.2  Informative References


   [4]   Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
         Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000.


   [5]   IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002.


   [6]   Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
         RFC 1771, March 1995.


   [7]   Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
         version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.


   [8]   Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
         Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004.


   [9]   Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Sommerfeld, B., Zill, B. and P. Nikander,
         "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt-05
         (work in progress), April 2004.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   [10]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for
         IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-03 (work in
         progress), June 2004.


   [11]  Savola, P., "Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home Address
         Options", draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-02 (work in
         progress), March 2002.


   [12]  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.


   [13]  Bellovin, S., Leech, M. and T. Taylor, "ICMP Traceback
         Messages", draft-ietf-itrace-04 (work in progress), February
         2003.


   [14]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812,
         June 1995.


   [15]  Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M. and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
         Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)",
         draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22 (work in progress), May 2004.


   [16]  Simpson, W., "IP in IP Tunneling", RFC 1853, October 1995.


   [17]  Hagino, J., "Possible abuse against IPv6 transition
         technologies", draft-itojun-ipv6-transition-abuse-01.txt
         (expired, work-in-progress) , July 2000.



Authors' Addresses


   Pekka Savola
   CSC/FUNET
   Espoo
   Finland


   EMail: psavola@funet.fi














Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   Chirayu Patel
   All Play, No Work
   185, Defence Colony
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560038
   India


   Phone: +91-98452-88078
   EMail: chirayu@chirayu.org
   URI:   http://www.chirayu.org


Appendix A.  Some Trivial Attack Scenarios Outlined


   Here, a few trivial attack scenarios are outlined -- ones that are
   prevented by implementing checks listed in [1] or in section 6.


   When two 6to4 routers send traffic to each others' domains, packet
   sent by RA to RB is like:


   src_v6 = 2002:0800:0001::aaaa
   dst_v6 = 2002:0800:0002::bbbb
   src_v4 = 8.0.0.1 (added when encapsulated to IPv4)
   dst_v4 = 8.0.0.2 (added when encapsulated to IPv4)


   When the packet is received by IPv4 stack on RB, it will be
   decapsulated so that only src_v6 and dst_v6 remain, as originally
   sent by RA:


   src_v6 = 2002:0800:0001::aaaa
   dst_v6 = 2002:0800:0002::bbbb


   As every other node is just one hop away (IPv6-wise) and the
   link-layer (IPv4) addresses are lost, this may open a lot of
   possibilities for misuse.


   As an example, unidirectional IPv6 spoofing is made trivial because
   nobody can check (without delving into IP-IP packets) whether the
   encapsulated IPv6 addresses were authentic (With native IPv6, this
   can be done by e.g., RPF-like mechanisms or access lists in upstream
   routers).


   src_v6 = 2002:1234:5678::aaaa (forged)
   dst_v6 = 2002:0800:0002::bbbb
   src_v4 = 8.0.0.1 (added when encapsulated to IPv4)
   dst_v4 = 8.0.0.2 (added when encapsulated to IPv4)


   A similar attack with "src" being native address is possible even
   with the security checks, by having the sender node pretend to be a
   6to4 relay router.




Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



   More worries come in to the picture if e.g.,


   src_v6 = ::ffff:[some trusted IPv4 in a private network]
   src_v6/dst_v6 = ::ffff:127.0.0.1
   src_v6/dst_v6 = ::1
   src_v6/dst_v6 = ...


   Some implementations might have been careful enough to have designed
   the stack to as to avoid the incoming (or reply) packets going to
   IPv4 packet processing through special addresses (e.g., IPv4-mapped
   addresses), but who can say for all ...


Appendix B.  Change Log


   [[ RFC-EDITOR note: to be removed before publication ]]


   Changes from -03 to -04


   1.  Some editorial fixes; resolve IESG evaluation comments.


   Changes from -02 to -03


   1.  Only rather minor editorial changes.


   Changes from -01 to -02


   1.  Incorporate Iljitsch's feedback


   2.  Clean up section 6.2


   3.  Fix encapsulation code (had been munged in -01)


   Changes from -00 to -01


   1.  Lots of editorial changes in other sections


   2.  Revamped the "Threat Analysis" section completely; ripple the
       effects elsewhere in the document as well.


   3.  Added Chirayu Patel as a co-author.












Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft      Security Considerations for 6to4           July 2004



Intellectual Property Statement


   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.



Disclaimer of Validity


   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 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.



Copyright Statement


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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.



Acknowledgment


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.





Savola & Patel          Expires January 16, 2005               [Page 41]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/