[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                          W. Kumari
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Informational                              I. Gashinsky
Expires: April 25, 2013                                           Yahoo!
                                                              J. Jaeggli
                                                         K. Chittimaneni
                                                        October 22, 2012

           Neighbor Discovery Enhancement for DOS mititgation


   In IPv4, subnets are generally small, made just large enough to cover
   the actual number of machines on the subnet.  In contrast, the
   default IPv6 subnet size is a /64, a number so large it covers
   trillions of addresses, the overwhelming number of which will be
   unassigned.  Consequently, simplistic implementations of Neighbor
   Discovery can be vulnerable to denial of service attacks whereby they
   attempt to perform address resolution for large numbers of unassigned
   addresses.  Such denial of attacks can be launched intentionally (by
   an attacker), or result from legitimate operational tools that scan
   networks for inventory and other purposes.  As a result of these
   vulnerabilities, new devices may not be able to "join" a network, it
   may be impossible to establish new IPv6 flows, and existing IPv6
   transported flows may be interrupted.

   This document describes a modification to the [RFC4861] neighbor
   discovery protocol aimed at improving the resilience of the neighbor
   discovery process.  We call this process Gratuitous neighbor
   discovery and it derives inspiration in part from analogous IPv4
   gratuitous ARP implementation.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  The Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Scenario 1 - DoS condition induced by default router
           failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Neighbor Discovery Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  NDP Protocol Gratuitous NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  User Configurable DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

1.  Introduction

   This document describes modifications to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
   protocol [RFC4861] in order to reduce exposure to vulnerabilities
   when a network is scanned, either by an intruder, as part of a
   deliberate DOS attempt, or through the use of scanning tools that
   perform network inventory, security audits, etc. (e.g., "nmap").  In
   some cases, DOS-like conditions can also be induced by legitimate
   traffic in heavy traffic networks such as campuses or datacenters.

1.1.  Applicability

   This document is primarily intended for implementors of [RFC4861].

   This document is a companion to two additional documents.  The first
   document was [RFC6583] Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems which
   addressed the problem in detail and described operational and
   implementation mitigation within the framework of the Existing
   protocol.  The second related document [I-D.ietf-6man-impatient-nud]
   Neighbor Unreachability Detection is too impatient proposes to alter
   the Neighbor unreachability Detection by relaxing rules in an attempt
   to keep devices in the cache.

   In this document we propose alterations that allow the update or
   installation of neighbor entries without the instigation of a full
   [RFC4861] neighbor solicitation.

2.  The Problem

   In IPv4, subnets are generally small, made just large enough to cover
   the actual number of machines on the subnet.  For example, an IPv4
   /20 contains only 4096 address.  In contrast, the default IPv6 subnet
   size is a /64, a number so large it covers literally billions of
   billions of addresses, the overwhelming number of which will be
   unassigned.  Consequently, simplistic implementations of Neighbor
   Discovery can be vulnerable to denial of service attacks whereby they
   perform address resolution for large numbers of unassigned addresses.
   Such denial of attacks can be launched intentionally (by an
   attacker), or result from legitimate operational tools that scan
   networks for inventory and other purposes.  As a result of these
   vulnerabilities, new devices may not be able to "join" a network, it
   may be impossible to establish new IPv6 flows, and existing IPv6
   transport flows may be interrupted.

   Network scans attempt to find and probe devices on a network.
   Typically, scans are performed on a range of target addresses, or all
   the addresses on a particular subnet.  When such probes are directed

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   via a router, and the target addresses are on a directly attached
   network, the router will to attempt to perform address resolution on
   a large number of destinations (i.e., some fraction of the 2^64
   addresses on the subnet).  The process of testing for the
   (non)existence of neighbors can induce a denial of service condition,
   where the number of Neighbor Discovery requests overwhelms the
   implementation's capacity to process them, exhausts available memory,
   replaces existing in-use mappings with incomplete entries that will
   never be completed, etc.  The result can be network disruption, where
   existing traffic may be impacted, and devices that join the net find
   that address resolutions fails.

   In order to alleviate risk associated with this DOS threat, some
   router implementations have taken steps to rate-limit the processing
   rate of Neighbor Solicitations (NS).  While these mitigations do
   help, they do not fully address the issue and may introduce their own
   set of potential liabilities to the neighbor discovery process.

   In some network environments, legitimate Neighbor Discovery traffic
   from a large number of connected hosts could induce a DoS condition
   even without the use of any scanning tools.

2.1.  Scenario 1 - DoS condition induced by default router failure

   Consider the following scenario - You have a pair of routers, R1 and
   R2, acting as default routers for a campus wifi network that serves
   thousands of clients.  These clients range from traditional laptops
   with common OSes such as Windows, MAC OS X, etc., to smart phones and
   tablets running a slew of mobile OSes.  R1, R2 and all clients are
   configured with default ND parameters.

   Under normal operating conditions, R1 acts as a default gateway for
   all client traffic and R2 is mostly acting as a standby.  R1 and R2
   routinely send out Router Advertisements and all nodes perform
   Neighbor Discovery as per the default timers configured.  Clients
   that are actively transmitting and receiving data will likely have a
   Neighbor Cache entry for R1 as REACHABLE and R2 as STALE.

   Now imagine that for some reason (power outage, hardware failure,
   etc.)  R1 goes down.  When this happens, R2 begins various
   housekeeping tasks such as reconverging its routing protocols (OSPF,
   BGP, etc.), recalculating layer 2 topologies such as in STP and so
   on.  Typically, such reconvergence incidents are quite CPU intensive
   depending on the size of the topology and are generally aggravated in
   dual stack environments.  Once clients determine that R1 is no longer
   reachable, they would start using R2 as their default router.

   At this point, the Neighbor Cache Entry for R2 is still marked as

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   STALE.  As per RFC4861, a node will start sending packets to R2, mark
   the neighbor cache entry for R2 as DELAY and set a timer to expire in
   node constant with a value of 5 seconds.  If the entry is still in
   the DELAY state when the timer expires, the entry's state changes to
   PROBE.  Upon entering the PROBE state, a node sends a unicast
   Neighbor Solicitation message to R2 using the cached link-layer

   Ordinarily, it is highly likely that the client will receive
   reachability confirmation within the 5 seconds of
   DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME by virtue of hints from upper layer protocols.
   However, in this scenario, given that R2 is busy doing other things,
   it is possible that it will take a longer time for the client to
   receive said reachability confirmation, forcing it to enter the PROBE
   state and send out a unicast NS message.

   With thousands of clients now sending out unicast NS messages to R2
   in a short period of time, while it is busy dealing with other
   reconvergence related calculations, you effectively end up in a DoS
   situation entirely with legitimate traffic.

3.  Terminology

   Address Resolution  Address resolution is the process through which a
      node determines the link-layer address of a neighbor given only
      its IP address.  In IPv6, address resolution is performed as part
      of Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861], p60

   Forwarding Plane  That part of a router responsible for forwarding
      packets.  In higher-end routers, the forwarding plane is typically
      implemented in specialized hardware optimized for performance.
      Forwarding steps include determining the correct outgoing
      interface for a packet, decrementing its Time To Live (TTL),
      verifying and updating the checksum, placing the correct link-
      layer header on the packet, and forwarding it.

   Control Plane  That part of the router implementation that maintains
      the data structures that determine where packets should be
      forwarded.  The control plane is typically implemented as a
      "slower" software process running on a general purpose processor
      and is responsible for such functions as the routing protocols,
      performing management and resolving the correct link-layer address
      for adjacent neighbors.  The control plane "controls" the
      forwarding plane by programming it with the information needed for
      packet forwarding.

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   Neighbor Cache  As described in [RFC4861], the data structure that
      holds the cache of (amongst other things) IP address to link-layer
      address mappings for connected nodes.  The forwarding plane
      accesses the Neighbor Cache on every forwarded packet.  Thus it is
      usually implemented in an ASIC .

   Neighbor Discovery Process  The Neighbor Discovery Process (NDP) is
      that part of the control plane that implements the Neighbor
      Discovery protocol.  NDP is responsible for performing address
      resolution and maintaining the Neighbor Cache.  When forwarding
      packets, the forwarding plane accesses entries within the Neighbor
      Cache.  Whenever the forwarding plane processes a packet for which
      the corresponding Neighbor Cache Entry is missing or incomplete,
      it notifies NDP to take appropriate action (typically via a shared
      queue).  NDP picks up requests from the shared queue and performs
      any necessary actions.  In many implementations it is also
      responsible for responding to router solicitation messages,
      Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD), etc.

4.  Background

   Modern router architectures separate the forwarding of packets
   (forwarding plane) from the decisions needed to decide where the
   packets should go (control plane).  In order to deal with the high
   number of packets per second the forwarding plane is generally
   implemented in hardware and is highly optimized for the task of
   forwarding packets.  In contrast, the NDP control plane is mostly
   implemented in software processes running on a general purpose

   When a router needs to forward an IP packet, the forwarding plane
   logic performs the longest match lookup to determine where to send
   the packet and what outgoing interface to use.  To deliver the packet
   to an adjacent node, It encapsulates the packet in a link-layer frame
   (which contains a header with the link-layer destination address).
   The forwarding plane logic checks the Neighbor Cache to see if it
   already has a suitable link-layer destination, and if not, places the
   request for the required information into a queue, and signals the
   control plane (i.e., NDP) that it needs the link-layer address

   In order to protect NDP specifically and the control plane generally
   from being overwhelmed with these requests, appropriate steps must be
   taken.  For example, the size and rate of the queue might be limited.
   NDP running in the control plane of the router dequeues requests and
   performs the address resolution function (by performing a neighbor
   solicitation and listening for a neighbor advertisement).  This

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   process is usually also responsible for other activities needed to
   maintain link-layer information, such as Neighbor Unreachability
   Detection (NUD).

   An attacker sending the appropriate packets to addresses on a given
   subnet can cause the router to queue attempts to resolve so many
   addresses that it crowds out attempts to resolve "legitimate"
   addresses (and in many cases becomes unable to perform maintenance of
   existing entries in the neighbor cache, and unable to answer Neighbor
   Solicitiation).  This condition can result the inability to resolve
   new neighbors and loss of reachability to neighbors with existing ND-
   Cache entries.  During testing it was concluded that 4 simultaneous
   nmap sessions from a low-end computer was sufficient to make a
   router's neighbor discovery process unhappy and therefore forwarding

   This behavior has been observed across multiple platforms and

5.  Neighbor Discovery Overview

   When a packet arrives at (or is generated by) a router for a
   destination on an attached link, the router needs to determine the
   correct link-layer address to send the packet to.  The router checks
   the Neighbor Cache for an existing Neighbor Cache Entry for the
   neighbor, and if none exists, invokes the address resolution portions
   of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] protocol to determine the
   link-layer address.

   RFC4861 Section 5.2 (Conceptual Sending Algorithm) outlines how this
   process works.  A very high level summary is that the device creates
   a new Neighbor Cache Entry for the neighbor, sets the state to
   INCOMPLETE, queues the packet and initiates the actual address
   resolution process.  The device then sends out one or more Neighbor
   Solicitations, and when it receives a corresponding Neighbor
   Advertisement, completes the Neighbor Cache Entry and sends the
   queued packet.

6.  Proposed Solutions

   Let us examine a few possible solutions that could alleviate the
   issues discussed in 'The Problem' section

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

6.1.  NDP Protocol Gratuitous NA

   RFC 4861, section 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 [RFC4861] requires that unsolicited
   neighbor advertisements result in the receiver setting it's neighbor
   cache entry to STALE, kicking off the resolution of the neighbor
   using neighbor solicitation.  If the link layer address in an
   unsolicited neighbor advertisement matches that of the existing ND
   cache entry, routers SHOULD retain the existing entry updating it's
   status with regards to LRU retention policy.

   Hosts MAY be configured to send unsolicited Neighbor advertisement at
   a rate set at the discretion of the operators.  The rate SHOULD be
   appropriate to the sizing of ND cache parameters and the host count
   on the subnet.  An unsolicited NA rate parameter MUST NOT be enabled
   by default.  The unsolicited rate interval as interpreted by hosts
   must jitter the value for the interval between transmissions.  Hosts
   receiving a neighbor solicitation requests from a router following
   each of three subsequent gratuitous NA intervals MUST revert to RFC
   4861 behavior.

   Implementation of new behavior for unsolicited neighbor advertisement
   would make it possible under appropriate circumstances to greatly
   reduce the dependence on the neighbor solicitation process for
   retaining existing ND cache entries.

   This may impact the detection of one-way reachability.

6.2.  User Configurable DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME

   A very simple solution for Scenario 1 could be to have a user
   configurable DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME that could be set to a higher
   value than the current constant of 5 seconds.  This would allow
   clients to keep sending traffic in the DELAY state, while giving more
   time for R2 to stabilize before it has to process the barrage of ND
   messages.  It will be up to Network administrators to determine what
   this value should be based upon unique characteristics of their
   setup.  Having a longer DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME does run the risk of
   clients sending traffic without ever knowing that they have forward
   reachability.  However, in most cases, the router's forwarding plane
   remains unaffected during high CPU events and therefore the
   likelihood of the traffic making it to the destination is high.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA resources or consideration are requested in this draft.

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

8.  Security Considerations

   This technique has potential impact on neighbor detection and in
   particular the discovery of unidirectional forwarding problems.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Ron Bonica, Troy Bonin, John Jason
   Brzozowski, Randy Bush, Vint Cerf, Jason Fesler Erik Kline, Jared
   Mauch, Chris Morrow and Suran De Silva.  Special thanks to Thomas
   Narten for detailed review and (even more so) for providing text!

   Apologies for anyone we may have missed; it was not intentional.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4398]  Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name
              System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC6164]  Kohno, M., Nitzan, B., Bush, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Colitti,
              L., and T. Narten, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
              Router Links", RFC 6164, April 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

              Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
              Detection is too impatient",
              draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-02 (work in progress),
              July 2012.

   [RFC4255]  Schlyter, J. and W. Griffin, "Using DNS to Securely
              Publish Secure Shell (SSH) Key Fingerprints", RFC 4255,
              January 2006.

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 ND Enhance                   October 2012

   [RFC6583]  Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
              Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, March 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Warren Kumari

   Email: warren@kumari.net

   45 W 18th St
   New York, NY

   Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com

   111 Evelyn
   Sunnyvale, CA

   Email: jjaeggli@zynga.com

   1600 Amphitheater Pkwy
   Mountain View, CA

   Email: kk@google.com

Kumari, et al.           Expires April 25, 2013                [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/