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

Versions: (draft-vyncke-opsec-v6) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

OPSEC                                                     E. Vyncke, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                           K. Chittimaneni
Expires: May 3, 2018                                        Dropbox Inc.
                                                                 M. Kaeo
                                                    Double Shot Security
                                                        October 30, 2017


         Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks
                         draft-ietf-opsec-v6-12

Abstract

   Knowledge and experience on how to operate IPv4 securely is
   available: whether it is the Internet or an enterprise internal
   network.  However, IPv6 presents some new security challenges.  RFC
   4942 describes the security issues in the protocol but network
   managers also need a more practical, operations-minded document to
   enumerate advantages and/or disadvantages of certain choices.

   This document analyzes the operational security issues in all places
   of a network (enterprises, service providers and residential users)
   and proposes technical and procedural mitigations techniques.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Generic Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Addressing Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Statically Configured Addresses . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  Use of ULAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.3.  Point-to-Point Links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.1.4.  Temporary Addresses - Privacy Extensions for SLAAC  .   6
       2.1.5.  Privacy consideration of Addresses  . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.6.  DHCP/DNS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.7.  Using a /64 per host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.1.  Order and Repetition of Extension Headers . . . . . .   8
       2.2.2.  Hop-by-Hop Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.3.  Fragmentation Extension Header  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.4.  IP Security Extension Header  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.3.  Link-Layer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  Securing DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.2.  ND/RA Rate Limiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.3.  ND/RA Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.3.4.  3GPP Link-Layer Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.3.5.  SeND and CGA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.4.  Control Plane Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.4.1.  Control Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       2.4.2.  Management Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.4.3.  Packet Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.5.  Routing Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.5.1.  Authenticating Neighbors/Peers  . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.5.2.  Securing Routing Updates Between Peers  . . . . . . .  17
       2.5.3.  Route Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     2.6.  Logging/Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.6.1.  Data Sources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.6.2.  Use of Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       2.6.3.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     2.7.  Transition/Coexistence Technologies . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       2.7.1.  Dual Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


       2.7.2.  Transition Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       2.7.3.  Translation Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     2.8.  General Device Hardening  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   3.  Enterprises Specific Security Considerations  . . . . . . . .  32
     3.1.  External Security Considerations: . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     3.2.  Internal Security Considerations: . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   4.  Service Providers Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . .  33
     4.1.  BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.1.1.  Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering . . . . . . . .  34
     4.2.  Transition Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     4.3.  Lawful Intercept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   5.  Residential Users Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . .  34
   6.  Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48

1.  Introduction

   Running an IPv6 network is new for most operators not only because
   they are not yet used to large scale IPv6 networks but also because
   there are subtle differences between IPv4 and IPv6 especially with
   respect to security.  For example, all layer-2 interactions are now
   done using Neighbor Discovery Protocol [RFC4861] rather than using
   Address Resolution Protocol [RFC0826].  Also, there are subtle
   differences between NAT44 [RFC2993] and NPTv6 [RFC6296] which are
   explicitly pointed out in the latter's security considerations
   section.

   IPv6 networks are deployed using a variety of techniques, each of
   which have their own specific security concerns.

   This document complements [RFC4942] by listing all security issues
   when operating a network utilizing varying transition technologies
   and updating with ones that have been standardized since 2007.  It
   also provides more recent operational deployment experiences where
   warranted.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   appear in ALL CAPS.  These words may also appear in this document in
   lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.

2.  Generic Security Considerations

2.1.  Addressing Architecture

   IPv6 address allocations and overall architecture are an important
   part of securing IPv6.  Initial designs, even if intended to be
   temporary, tend to last much longer than expected.  Although
   initially IPv6 was thought to make renumbering easy, in practice, it
   may be extremely difficult to renumber without a good IP Addresses
   Management (IPAM) system.

   Once an address allocation has been assigned, there should be some
   thought given to an overall address allocation plan.  With the
   abundance of address space available, an address allocation may be
   structured around services along with geographic locations, which
   then can be a basis for more structured security policies to permit
   or deny services between geographic regions.

   A common question is whether companies should use PI vs PA space
   [RFC7381], but from a security perspective there is little
   difference.  However, one aspect to keep in mind is who has
   administrative ownership of the address space and who is technically
   responsible if/when there is a need to enforce restrictions on
   routability of the space due to malicious criminal activity.  Using
   PA space exposes the organization to a renumbering of the complete
   network including security policies (based on ACL), audit system, ...
   in short a complex task which could lead to some security risk if
   done for a large network and without automation; hence, for large
   network, PI space should be preferred.

2.1.1.  Statically Configured Addresses

   When considering how to assign statically configured addresses it is
   necessary to take into consideration the effectiveness of perimeter
   security in a given environment.  There is a trade-off between ease
   of operation (where some portions of the IPv6 address could be easily
   recognizable for operational debugging and troubleshooting) versus
   the risk of trivial scanning used for reconnaissance.  [SCANNING]
   shows that there are scientifically based mechanisms that make
   scanning for IPv6 reachable nodes more realizable than expected; see
   also [RFC7707].  The use of common multicast groups which are defined
   for important networked devices and the use of commonly repeated
   addresses could make it easy to figure out which devices are name
   servers, routers or other critical devices; even a simple traceroute
   will expose most of the routers on a path.  There are many scanning



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   techniques and more to come possible, hence, operators should never
   relly on the 'impossible to find because my address is random'
   paradigm.

   While in some environments the security is so poor that obfuscating
   addresses could be considered a benefit; it is a better practice to
   ensure that perimeter rules are actively checked and enforced and
   that statically configured addresses follow some logical allocation
   scheme for ease of operation (as simplicity always helps security).

2.1.2.  Use of ULAs

   It is important to carefully weigh the benefits of using ULAs versus
   utilizing a section of the global allocation and creating a more
   effective filtering strategy.  It is also important to note that the
   IETF does not recommend the use of ULA and NPTv6.

   ULAs are intended for scenarios where IP addresses will not have
   global scope so they should not appear in the global BGP routing
   table.  The implicit expectation from the RFC is that all ULAs will
   be randomly created as /48s.  Any use of ULAs that are not created as
   a /48 violates RFC4193 [RFC4193].

   ULAs could be useful for infrastructure hiding as described in
   RFC4864 [RFC4864].  Alternatively Link-Local addresses RFC7404
   [RFC7404] could also be used.  Although ULAs are supposed to be used
   in conjunction with global addresses for hosts that desire external
   connectivity, a few operators chose to use ULAs in conjunction with
   some sort of address translation at the border in order to maintain a
   perception of parity between their IPv4 and IPv6 setup.  Some
   operators believe that stateful IPv6 Network Address and Port
   Translation (NAPT) provides some security not provided by NPTv6 (the
   authors of this document do not share this point of view).  The use
   of stateful IPv6 NAPT would be problematic in trying to track
   specific machines that may source malware although this is less of an
   issue if appropriate logging is done which includes utilizing
   accurate timestamps and logging a node's source ports RFC6302
   [RFC6302].  Another typical argument in favor of ULA is that there
   are too many mistakes made with ACL filters at the edge and the use
   of ULAs could make things easier to set filters.

   The use of ULA does not isolate 'by magic' the part of the network
   using ULA from other parts of the network (including the Internet).
   Although section 4.1 of RFC4193 [RFC4193] explicitly states "If BGP
   is being used at the site border with an ISP, the default BGP
   configuration must filter out any Local IPv6 address prefixes, both
   incoming and outgoing.", the operational reality is that this
   guideline is not always followed.  As written, RFC4193 makes no



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   changes to default routing behavior of exterior protocols.
   Therefore, routers will happily forward packets whose source or
   destination address is ULA as long as they have a route to the
   destination and there is no ACL blocking those packets.  This means
   that using ULA does not prevent route and packet filters having to be
   implemented and monitored.  This also means that all Internet transit
   networks should consider ULA as source or destination as bogons
   packets and drop them.

2.1.3.  Point-to-Point Links

   RFC6164 [RFC6164] recommends the use of /127 for inter-router point-
   to-point links.  A /127 prevents the ping-pong attack between
   routers.  However, it should be noted that at the time of this
   writing, there are still many networks out there that follow the
   advice provided by RFC3627 [RFC3627] (obsoleted and marked Historic
   by RFC6547 [RFC6547]) and therefore continue to use /64's and/or
   /112's.  We recommend that the guidance provided by RFC6164 be
   followed.

   Some environments are also using link-local addressing for point-to-
   point links.  While this practice could further reduce the attack
   surface against infrastructure devices, the operational disadvantages
   need also to be carefully considered RFC7404 [RFC7404].

2.1.4.  Temporary Addresses - Privacy Extensions for SLAAC

   Normal stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) relies on the
   automatically generated EUI-64 address, which together with the /64
   prefix makes up the global unique IPv6 address.  The EUI-64 address
   is generated from the MAC address.  Randomly generating an interface
   ID, as described in [RFC4941], is part of SLAAC with so-called
   privacy extension addresses and used to address some privacy
   concerns.  Privacy extension addresses a.k.a. temporary addresses may
   help to mitigate the correlation of activities of a node within the
   same network, and may also reduce the attack exposure window.

   As privacy extension addresses could also be used to obfuscate some
   malevolent activities (whether on purpose or not), it is advised in
   scenarios where user attribution is important to rely on a layer-2
   authentication mechanism such as IEEE 802.1X [IEEE-802.1X] with the
   appropriate RADIUS accounting (Section 2.6.1.6) or to disable SLAAC
   and rely only on DHCPv6.  However, in scenarios where anonymity is a
   strong desire (protecting user privacy is more important than user
   attribution), privacy extension addresses should be used.  When
   [RFC8064] is available, the stable temporary address are probably a
   good balance between privacy (among multiple networks) and security/
   user attribution (within a network).



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   Using privacy extension addresses prevents the operator from building
   a priori host specific access control lists (ACLs).  It must be noted
   that recent versions of Windows do not use the MAC address anymore to
   build the stable address but use a mechanism similar to the one
   described in [RFC7217], this also means that such an ACL cannot be
   configured based solely on the MAC address of the nodes, diminishing
   the value of such ACL.  On the other hand, different VLANs are often
   used to segregate users, in this case ACL can rely on a /64 prefix
   per VLAN rather than a per host ACL entry.

   The decision to utilize privacy extension addresses can come down to
   whether the network is managed versus unmanaged.  In some
   environments full visibility into the network is required at all
   times which requires that all traffic be attributable to where it is
   sourced or where it is destined to within a specific network.  This
   situation is dependent on what level of logging is performed.  If
   logging considerations include utilizing accurate timestamps and
   logging a node's source ports [RFC6302] then there should always
   exist appropriate user attribution needed to get to the source of any
   malware originator or source of criminal activity.

   Disabling SLAAC and privacy extensions addresses can be done for
   normal users by sending Router Advertisement with a hint to get
   addresses via DHCPv6 by setting the M-bit but also disabling SLAAC by
   resetting all A-bits in all prefix information options sent in the
   Router Advertisement message.  Hackers will find a way to bypass this
   mechanism if not enforced at the swicth/router level by snooping the
   DHCPv6 exchanges and enforcing the mapping between the switch/router
   port, the MAC address and the leased IPv6 address.

2.1.5.  Privacy consideration of Addresses

   However, there are several privacy issues still present with
   [RFC4941] such as host tracking, and address scanning attacks are
   still possible.  More details are provided in Appendix A.  of
   [RFC7217] and in [RFC7721].

2.1.6.  DHCP/DNS Considerations

   Many environments use DHCPv6 to allocate addresses to ensure audit-
   ability and traceability (but see Section 2.6.1.5).  A main security
   concern is the ability to detect and counteract against rogue DHCP
   servers (Section 2.3.1).

   DNS is often used for malware activities and while there are no
   fundamental differences with IPv4 and IPv6 security concerns, there
   are specific consideration in DNS64 RFC6147 [RFC6147] environments
   that need to be understood.  Specifically the interactions and



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   potential to interference with DNSsec implementation need to be
   understood - these are pointed out in detail in Section 2.7.3.2.

2.1.7.  Using a /64 per host

   An interesting approach is using a /64 per host as proposed in
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host].  This allows an easier
   user attribution (typically based on the host MAC address) as its /64
   prefix is stable even if applications, containers within the host can
   change of IPv6 address within this /64.

2.2.  Extension Headers

   The extension headers are one of the most critical differentiator
   between IPv4 and IPv6.  They have also become a very controversial
   topic since forwarding nodes that discard packets containing
   extension headers are known to cause connectivity failures and
   deployment problems.  Understanding the role of varying extension
   headers is important and this section enumerates the ones that need
   careful consideration.  The IANA has closed the existing empty "Next
   Header Types" registry to new entries and is redirecting its users to
   a new "IPv6 Extension Header Types" registry.

   A clarification on how intermediate nodes should handle existing
   packets with extension headers and any extension headers that are
   defined in the future is found in RFC7045 [RFC7045].  The uniform TLV
   format to be used for defining future extension headers is described
   in RFC6564 [RFC6564].  Some observations listed in RFC7872 [RFC7872]
   seems to indicate that packets with certain extension headers may not
   traverse the Internet to its intended destination based on operator
   policies.

   It must also be noted that there is no indication in the packet
   whether the Next Protocol field points to an extension header or to a
   transport header.  This may confuse some filtering rules.

2.2.1.  Order and Repetition of Extension Headers

   While RFC2460 [RFC2460]RFC2460 defines the order and the maximum
   repetition of extension headers, there are still IPv6 implementations
   at the time of writing this document which support a wrong order of
   headers (such as ESP before routing) or an illegal repetition of
   headers (such as multiple routing headers).  The same applies for
   options contained in the extension headers (see
   [I-D.kampanakis-6man-ipv6-eh-parsing]).  In some cases, it has lead
   to nodes crashing when receiving or forwarding wrongly formated
   packets.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


2.2.2.  Hop-by-Hop Extension Header

   The hop-by-hop extension header, when present in an IPv6 packet,
   forces all nodes in the path to inspect this header.  This is of
   course a large avenue for a denial of service as most if not all
   routers cannot process this kind of packets in hardware but have to
   'punt' this packet for software processing.  See also
   [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling].

2.2.3.  Fragmentation Extension Header

   The fragmentation extension header is used by the source when it has
   to fragment packets.  RFC7112 [RFC7112] explains why it is important
   to:

      firewall and security devices should drop first fragment not
      containing enough of the layer-4 header;

      destination node should ignore first fragment not containing the
      entire IPv6 header chain.

   Else, stateless filtering could be bypassed by an hostile party.
   RFC6980 [RFC6980] applies the same rule to NDP and the RA-guard
   function.

2.2.4.  IP Security Extension Header

   The IPsec [RFC4301] [RFC4301] extension headers (AH [RFC4302] and ESP
   [RFC4303]) are required if IPsec is to be utilized for network level
   security functionality.

2.3.  Link-Layer Security

   IPv6 relies heavily on the Neighbor Discovery protocol (NDP) RFC4861
   [RFC4861] to perform a variety of link operations such as discovering
   other nodes on the link, resolving their link-layer addresses, and
   finding routers on the link.  If not secured, NDP is vulnerable to
   various attacks such as router/neighbor message spoofing, redirect
   attacks, Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) DoS attacks, etc. many of
   these security threats to NDP have been documented in IPv6 ND Trust
   Models and Threats RFC3756 [RFC3756] and in RFC6583 [RFC6583].

2.3.1.  Securing DHCP

   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6), as detailed in
   RFC3315 [RFC3315], enables DHCP servers to pass configuration
   parameters such as IPv6 network addresses and other configuration
   information to IPv6 nodes.  DHCP plays an important role in any large



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   network by providing robust stateful configuration and
   autoregistration of DNS Host Names.

   The two most common threats to DHCP clients come from malicious
   (a.k.a. rogue) or unintentionally misconfigured DHCP servers.  A
   malicious DHCP server is established with the intent of providing
   incorrect configuration information to the client to cause a denial
   of service attack or mount a man in the middle attack.  While
   unintentionall, a misconfigured DHCP server can have the same impact.
   Additional threats against DHCP are discussed in the security
   considerations section of RFC3315 [RFC3315]DHCP-shield.

   RFC7610 [RFC7610] specifies a mechanism for protecting connected
   DHCPv6 clients against rogue DHCPv6 servers.  This mechanism is based
   on DHCPv6 packet-filtering at the layer-2 device; the administrator
   specifies the interfaces connected to DHCPv6 servers.

   It is recommended to use DHCP-shield and to analyze the log generated
   by this security feature.

2.3.2.  ND/RA Rate Limiting

   Neighbor Discovery (ND) can be vulnerable to denial of service (DoS)
   attacks in which a router is forced to perform address resolution for
   a large number of unassigned addresses.  Possible side effects of
   this attack preclude new devices from joining the network or even
   worse rendering the last hop router ineffective due to high CPU
   usage.  Easy mitigative steps include rate limiting Neighbor
   Solicitations, restricting the amount of state reserved for
   unresolved solicitations, and clever cache/timer management.

   RFC6583 [RFC6583] discusses the potential for DoS in detail and
   suggests implementation improvements and operational mitigation
   techniques that may be used to mitigate or alleviate the impact of
   such attacks.  Here are some feasible mitigation options that can be
   employed by network operators today:

   o  Ingress filtering of unused addresses by ACL, route filtering,
      longer than /64 prefix; These require static configuration of the
      addresses.

   o  Tuning of NDP process (where supported).

   Additionally, IPv6 ND uses multicast extensively for signaling
   messages on the local link to avoid broadcast messages for on-the-
   wire efficiency.  However, this has some side effects on wifi
   networks, especially a negative impact on battery life of smartphones
   and other battery operated devices that are connected to such



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   networks.  The following drafts are actively discussing methods to
   rate limit RAs and other ND messages on wifi networks in order to
   address this issue:

   o  [I-D.thubert-savi-ra-throttler]

   o  [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd]

2.3.3.  ND/RA Filtering

   Router Advertisement spoofing is a well-known attack vector and has
   been extensively documented.  The presence of rogue RAs, either
   intentional or malicious, can cause partial or complete failure of
   operation of hosts on an IPv6 link.  For example, a host can select
   an incorrect router address which can be used as a man-in-the-middle
   (MITM) attack or can assume wrong prefixes to be used for stateless
   address configuration (SLAAC).  RFC6104 [RFC6104] summarizes the
   scenarios in which rogue RAs may be observed and presents a list of
   possible solutions to the problem.  RFC6105 [RFC6105] (RA-Guard)
   describes a solution framework for the rogue RA problem where network
   segments are designed around switching devices that are capable of
   identifying invalid RAs and blocking them before the attack packets
   actually reach the target nodes.

   However, several evasion techniques that circumvent the protection
   provided by RA-Guard have surfaced.  A key challenge to this
   mitigation technique is introduced by IPv6 fragmentation.  An
   attacker can conceal the attack by fragmenting his packets into
   multiple fragments such that the switching device that is responsible
   for blocking invalid RAs cannot find all the necessary information to
   perform packet filtering in the same packet.  RFC7113 [RFC7113]
   describes such evasion techniques, and provides advice to RA-Guard
   implementers such that the aforementioned evasion vectors can be
   eliminated.

   Given that the IPv6 Fragmentation Header can be leveraged to
   circumvent current implementations of RA-Guard, RFC6980 [RFC6980]
   updates RFC4861 [RFC4861] such that use of the IPv6 Fragmentation
   Header is forbidden in all Neighbor Discovery messages except
   "Certification Path Advertisement", thus allowing for simple and
   effective measures to counter Neighbor Discovery attacks.

   The Source Address Validation Improvements (SAVI) working group has
   worked on other ways to mitigate the effects of such attacks.
   RFC7513 [RFC7513] would help in creating bindings between a DHCPv4
   RFC2131 [RFC2131] /DHCPv6 RFC3315 [RFC3315] assigned source IP
   address and a binding anchor RFC7039 [RFC7039] on a SAVI device.
   Also, RFC6620 [RFC6620] describes how to glean similar bindings when



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   DHCP is not used.  The bindings can be used to filter packets
   generated on the local link with forged source IP address.

   It is still recommended that RA-Guard be be employed as a first line
   of defense against common attack vectors including misconfigured
   hosts.  The generated log should also be analyzed to act on
   violations.

2.3.4.  3GPP Link-Layer Security

   The 3GPP link is a point-to-point like link that has no link-layer
   address.  This implies there can only be an end host (the mobile
   hand-set) and the first-hop router (i.e., a GPRS Gateway Support Node
   (GGSN) or a Packet Gateway (PGW)) on that link.  The GGSN/PGW never
   configures a non link-local address on the link using the advertised
   /64 prefix on it.  The advertised prefix must not be used for on-link
   determination.  There is no need for an address resolution on the
   3GPP link, since there are no link-layer addresses.  Furthermore, the
   GGSN/PGW assigns a prefix that is unique within each 3GPP link that
   uses IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration.  This avoids the
   necessity to perform DAD at the network level for every address built
   by the mobile host.  The GGSN/PGW always provides an IID to the
   cellular host for the purpose of configuring the link-local address
   and ensures the uniqueness of the IID on the link (i.e., no
   collisions between its own link-local address and the mobile host's
   one).

   The 3GPP link model itself mitigates most of the known NDP-related
   Denial-of-Service attacks.  In practice, the GGSN/PGW only needs to
   route all traffic to the mobile host that falls under the prefix
   assigned to it.  As there is also a single host on the 3GPP link,
   there is no need to defend that IPv6 address.

   See Section 5 of RFC6459 [RFC6459] for a more detailed discussion on
   the 3GPP link model, NDP on it and the address configuration detail.

2.3.5.  SeND and CGA

   SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SeND), as described in RFC3971 [RFC3971],
   is a mechanism that was designed to secure ND messages.  This
   approach involves the use of new NDP options to carry public key
   based signatures.  Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA), as
   described in RFC3972 [RFC3972], are used to ensure that the sender of
   a Neighbor Discovery message is the actual "owner" of the claimed
   IPv6 address.  A new NDP option, the CGA option, was introduced and
   is used to carry the public key and associated parameters.  Another
   NDP option, the RSA Signature option, is used to protect all messages
   relating to neighbor and Router discovery.



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   SeND protects against:

   o  Neighbor Solicitation/Advertisement Spoofing

   o  Neighbor Unreachability Detection Failure

   o  Duplicate Address Detection DoS Attack

   o  Router Solicitation and Advertisement Attacks

   o  Replay Attacks

   o  Neighbor Discovery DoS Attacks

   SeND does NOT:

   o  Protect statically configured addresses

   o  Protect addresses configured using fixed identifiers (i.e.  EUI-
      64)

   o  Provide confidentiality for NDP communications

   o  Compensate for an unsecured link - SEND does not require that the
      addresses on the link and Neighbor Advertisements correspond

   However, at this time and after many years after their
   specifications, CGA and SeND do not have wide support from generic
   operating systems; hence, their usefulness is limited.

2.4.  Control Plane Security

   RFC6192 [RFC6192] defines the router control plane.  This definition
   is repeated here for the reader's convenience.

   Modern router architecture design maintains a strict separation of
   forwarding and router control plane hardware and software.  The
   router control plane supports routing and management functions.  It
   is generally described as the router architecture hardware and
   software components for handling packets destined to the device
   itself as well as building and sending packets originated locally on
   the device.  The forwarding plane is typically described as the
   router architecture hardware and software components responsible for
   receiving a packet on an incoming interface, performing a lookup to
   identify the packet's IP next hop and determine the best outgoing
   interface towards the destination, and forwarding the packet out
   through the appropriate outgoing interface.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   While the forwarding plane is usually implemented in high-speed
   hardware, the control plane is implemented by a generic processor
   (named router processor RP) and cannot process packets at a high
   rate.  Hence, this processor can be attacked by flooding its input
   queue with more packets than it can process.  The control plane
   processor is then unable to process valid control packets and the
   router can lose OSPF or BGP adjacencies which can cause a severe
   network disruption.

   The mitigation technique is:

   o  To drop non-legit control packet before they are queued to the RP
      (this can be done by a forwarding plane ACL) and

   o  To rate limit the remaining packets to a rate that the RP can
      sustain.  Protocol specific protection should also be done (for
      example, a spoofed OSPFv3 packet could trigger the execution of
      the Dijkstra algorithm, therefore the number of Dijsktra execution
      should be also rate limited).

   This section will consider several classes of control packets:

   o  Control protocols: routing protocols: such as OSPFv3, BGP and by
      extension Neighbor Discovery and ICMP

   o  Management protocols: SSH, SNMP, IPfix, etc

   o  Packet exceptions: which are normal data packets which requires a
      specific processing such as generating a packet-too-big ICMP
      message or having the hop-by-hop extension header.

2.4.1.  Control Protocols

   This class includes OSPFv3, BGP, NDP, ICMP.

   An ingress ACL to be applied on all the router interfaces SHOULD be
   configured such as:

   o  drop OSPFv3 (identified by Next-Header being 89) and RIPng
      (identified by UDP port 521) packets from a non link-local address

   o  allow BGP (identified by TCP port 179) packets from all BGP
      neighbors and drop the others

   o  allow all ICMP packets (transit and to the router interfaces)






Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   Note: dropping OSPFv3 packets which are authenticated by IPsec could
   be impossible on some routers whose ACL are unable to parse the IPsec
   ESP or AH extension headers.

   Rate limiting of the valid packets SHOULD be done.  The exact
   configuration obviously depends on the power of the Route Processor.

2.4.2.  Management Protocols

   This class includes: SSH, SNMP, syslog, NTP, etc

   An ingress ACL to be applied on all the router interfaces SHOULD be
   configured such as:

   o  Drop packets destined to the routers except those belonging to
      protocols which are used (for example, permit TCP 22 and drop all
      when only SSH is used);

   o  Drop packets where the source does not match the security policy,
      for example if SSH connections should only be originated from the
      NOC, then the ACL should permit TCP port 22 packets only from the
      NOC prefix.

   Rate limiting of the valid packets SHOULD be done.  The exact
   configuration obviously depends on the power of the Route Processor.

2.4.3.  Packet Exceptions

   This class covers multiple cases where a data plane packet is punted
   to the route processor because it requires specific processing:

   o  generation of an ICMP packet-too-big message when a data plane
      packet cannot be forwarded because it is too large;

   o  generation of an ICMP hop-limit-expired message when a data plane
      packet cannot be forwarded because its hop-limit field has reached
      0;

   o  generation of an ICMP destination-unreachable message when a data
      plane packet cannot be forwarded for any reason;

   o  processing of the hop-by-hop extension header (see also
      [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling]);

   o  or more specific to some router implementation: an oversized
      extension header chain which cannot be processed by the hardware
      and force the packet to be punted to the generic router CPU.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   On some routers, not everything can be done by the specialized data
   plane hardware which requires some packets to be 'punted' to the
   generic RP.  This could include for example the processing of a long
   extension header chain in order to apply an ACL based on layer 4
   information.  RFC6980 [RFC6980] and more generally RFC7112 [RFC7112]
   highlights the security implications of oversized extension header
   chains on routers and updates RFC2460 [RFC2460] such that the first
   fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header
   chain.

   An ingress ACL cannot help to mitigate a control plane attack using
   those packet exceptions.  The only protection for the RP is to limit
   the rate of those packet exceptions forwarded to the RP, this means
   that some data plane packets will be dropped without any ICMP
   messages back to the source which will cause Path MTU holes.  But,
   there is no other solution.

   In addition to limiting the rate of data plane packets queued to the
   RP, it is also important to limit the generation rate of ICMP
   messages both the save the RP but also to prevent an amplification
   attack using the router as a reflector.

2.5.  Routing Security

   Routing security in general can be broadly divided into three
   sections:

   1.  Authenticating neighbors/peers

   2.  Securing routing updates between peers

   3.  Route filtering

   [RFC7454] covers these sections specifically for BGP in detail.

2.5.1.  Authenticating Neighbors/Peers

   A basic element of routing is the process of forming adjacencies,
   neighbor, or peering relationships with other routers.  From a
   security perspective, it is very important to establish such
   relationships only with routers and/or administrative domains that
   one trusts.  A traditional approach has been to use MD5 HMAC, which
   allows routers to authenticate each other prior to establishing a
   routing relationship.

   OSPFv3 can rely on IPsec to fulfill the authentication function.
   However, it should be noted that IPsec support is not standard on all
   routing platforms.  In some cases, this requires specialized hardware



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   that offloads crypto over to dedicated ASICs or enhanced software
   images (both of which often come with added financial cost) to
   provide such functionality.  An added detail is to determine whether
   OSPFv3 IPsec implementations use AH or ESP-Null for integrity
   protection.  In early implementations all OSPFv3 IPsec configurations
   relied on AH since the details weren't specified in RFC5340 [RFC5340]
   or RFC2740 [RFC2740] that was obsoleted by the former.  However, the
   document which specifically describes how IPsec should be implemented
   for OSPFv3 RFC4552 [RFC4552] specifically states that ESP-Null MUST
   and AH MAY be implemented since it follows the overall IPsec
   standards wordings.  OSPFv3 can also use normal ESP to encrypt the
   OSPFv3 payload to hide the routing information.

   RFC7166 [RFC7166] (which obsoletes RFC6506 [RFC6506] changes OSPFv3's
   reliance on IPsec by appending an authentication trailer to the end
   of the OSPFv3 packets.  This document does not specifically provide
   for a mechanism that will authenticate the specific originator of a
   packet.  Rather, it will allow a router to confirm that the packet
   has indeed been issued by a router that had access to the shared
   authentication key.

   With all authentication mechanisms, operators should confirm that
   implementations can support re-keying mechanisms that do not cause
   outages.  There have been instances where any re-keying cause outages
   and therefore the tradeoff between utilizing this functionality needs
   to be weighed against the protection it provides.

2.5.2.  Securing Routing Updates Between Peers

   IPv6 initially mandated the provisioning of IPsec capability in all
   nodes.  However, in the updated IPv6 Nodes Requirement standard
   RFC6434 [RFC6434] is now a SHOULD and not MUST implement.
   Theoretically it is possible, and recommended, that communication
   between two IPv6 nodes, including routers exchanging routing
   information be encrypted using IPsec.  In practice however, deploying
   IPsec is not always feasible given hardware and software limitations
   of various platforms deployed, as described in the earlier section.
   Additionally, in a protocol such as OSPFv3 where adjacencies are
   formed on a one-to-many basis, IPsec key management becomes difficult
   to maintain and is not often utilized.

2.5.3.  Route Filtering

   Route filtering policies will be different depending on whether they
   pertain to edge route filtering vs internal route filtering.  At a
   minimum, IPv6 routing policy as it pertains to routing between
   different administrative domains should aim to maintain parity with
   IPv4 from a policy perspective e.g.,



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  Filter internal-use, non-globally routable IPv6 addresses at the
      perimeter

   o  Discard packets from and to bogon and reserved space

   o  Configure ingress route filters that validate route origin, prefix
      ownership, etc. through the use of various routing databases,
      e.g., RADB.  There is additional work being done in this area to
      formally validate the origin ASs of BGP announcements in RFC6810
      [RFC6810]

   Some good recommendations for filtering can be found from Team CYMRU
   at [CYMRU].

2.6.  Logging/Monitoring

   In order to perform forensic research in case of any security
   incident or to detect abnormal behaviors, network operators should
   log multiple pieces of information.

   This includes:

   o  logs of all applications when available (for example web servers);

   o  use of IP Flow Information Export [RFC7011] also known as IPfix;

   o  use of SNMP MIB [RFC4293];

   o  use of the Neighbor cache;

   o  use of stateful DHCPv6 [RFC3315] lease cache, especially when a
      relay agent [RFC6221] in layer-2 switches is used;

   o  use of RADIUS [RFC2866] for accounting records.

   Please note that there are privacy issues related to how those logs
   are collected, kept and safely discarded.  Operators are urged to
   check their country legislation.

   All those pieces of information will be used for:

   o  forensic (Section 2.6.2.1) investigations such as who did what and
      when?

   o  correlation (Section 2.6.2.3): which IP addresses were used by a
      specific node (assuming the use of privacy extensions addresses
      [RFC4941])




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  inventory (Section 2.6.2.2): which IPv6 nodes are on my network?

   o  abnormal behavior detection (Section 2.6.2.4): unusual traffic
      patterns are often the symptoms of a abnormal behavior which is in
      turn a potential attack (denial of services, network scan, a node
      being part of a botnet, ...)

2.6.1.  Data Sources

   This section lists the most important sources of data that are useful
   for operational security.

2.6.1.1.  Logs of Applications

   Those logs are usually text files where the remote IPv6 address is
   stored in all characters (not binary).  This can complicate the
   processing since one IPv6 address, 2001:db8::1 can be written in
   multiple ways such as:

   o  2001:DB8::1 (in uppercase)

   o  2001:0db8::0001 (with leading 0)

   o  and many other ways including the reverse DNS mapping into a FQDN
      (which should not be trusted).

   RFC 5952 [RFC5952] explains this problem in detail and recommends the
   use of a single canonical format (in short use lower case and
   suppress leading 0).  This memo recommends the use of canonical
   format [RFC5952] for IPv6 addresses in all possible cases.  If the
   existing application cannot log under the canonical format, then this
   memo recommends the use an external program in order to canonicalize
   all IPv6 addresses.

   For example, this perl script can be used:
















Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   #!/usr/bin/perl -w
   use strict ;
   use warnings ;
   use Socket ;
   use Socket6 ;

   my (@words, $word, $binary_address) ;

   ## go through the file one line at a time
   while (my $line = <STDIN>) {
     chomp $line;
     foreach my $word (split /[\s+]/, $line) {
       $binary_address = inet_pton AF_INET6, $word ;
       if ($binary_address) {
         print inet_ntop AF_INET6, $binary_address ;
       } else {
         print $word ;
       }
       print " " ;
     }
     print "\n" ;
   }

2.6.1.2.  IP Flow Information Export by IPv6 Routers

   IPfix [RFC7012] defines some data elements that are useful for
   security:

   o  in section 5.4 (IP Header fields): nextHeaderIPv6 and
      sourceIPv6Address;

   o  in section 5.6 (Sub-IP fields) sourceMacAddress.

   Moreover, IPfix is very efficient in terms of data handling and
   transport.  It can also aggregate flows by a key such as
   sourceMacAddress in order to have aggregated data associated with a
   specific sourceMacAddress.  This memo recommends the use of IPfix and
   aggregation on nextHeaderIPv6, sourceIPv6Address and
   sourceMacAddress.

2.6.1.3.  SNMP MIB by IPv6 Routers

   RFC 4293 [RFC4293] defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for
   the two address families of IP.  This memo recommends the use of:

   o  ipIfStatsTable table which collects traffic counters per
      interface;




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  ipNetToPhysicalTable table which is the content of the Neighbor
      cache, i.e. the mapping between IPv6 and data-link layer
      addresses.

2.6.1.4.  Neighbor Cache of IPv6 Routers

   The neighbor cache of routers contains all mappings between IPv6
   addresses and data-link layer addresses.  It is usually available by
   two means:

   o  the SNMP MIB (Section 2.6.1.3) as explained above;

   o  also by connecting over a secure management channel (such as SSH
      or HTTPS) and explicitely requesting a neighbor cache dump.

   The neighbor cache is highly dynamic as mappings are added when a new
   IPv6 address appears on the network (could be quite often with
   privacy extension addresses [RFC4941] or when they are removed when
   the state goes from UNREACH to removed (the default time for a
   removal per Neighbor Unreachability Detection [RFC4861] algorithm is
   38 seconds for a typical host such as Windows 7).  This means that
   the content of the neighbor cache must periodically be fetched every
   30 seconds (to be on the safe side) and stored for later use.

   This is an important source of information because it is trivial (on
   a switch not using the SAVI [RFC7039] algorithm) to defeat the
   mapping between data-link layer address and IPv6 address.  Let us
   rephrase the previous statement: having access to the current and
   past content of the neighbor cache has a paramount value for forensic
   and audit trail.

   Using the approach of one /64 per host (Section 2.1.7) replaces the
   neighbor cache dumps by a mere caching of the allocated /64 prefix
   when combined with strict enforcement rule on the router and switches
   to prevent IPv6 spoofing.

2.6.1.5.  Stateful DHCPv6 Lease

   In some networks, IPv6 addresses are managed by stateful DHCPv6
   server [RFC3315] that leases IPv6 addresses to clients.  It is indeed
   quite similar to DHCP for IPv4 so it can be tempting to use this DHCP
   lease file to discover the mapping between IPv6 addresses and data-
   link layer addresses as it was usually done in the IPv4 era.

   It is not so easy in the IPv6 era because not all nodes will use
   DHCPv6 (there are nodes which can only do stateless
   autoconfiguration) but also because DHCPv6 clients are identified not
   by their hardware-client address as in IPv4 but by a DHCP Unique ID



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   (DUID) which can have several formats: some being the data-link layer
   address, some being data-link layer address prepended with time
   information or even an opaque number which is useless for operation
   security.  Moreover, when the DUID is based on the data-link address,
   this address can be of any interface of the client (such as the
   wireless interface while the client actually uses its wired interface
   to connect to the network).

   If a lightweight DHCP relay agent [RFC6221] is used in the layer-2
   switches, then the DHCP server also receives the Interface-ID
   information which could be save in order to identifity the interface
   of the switches which received a specific leased IPv6 address.  Also,
   if a relay agent adds the data-link layer address in the option for
   Relay Agent Remote-ID [RFC4649], then the DHCPv6 server can keep
   track of the data-link and leased IPv6 addresses.

   In short, the DHCPv6 lease file is less interesting than in the IPv4
   era.  DHCPv6 servers that keeps the relayed data-link layer address
   in addition to the DUID in the lease file do not suffer from this
   limitation.  On a managed network where all hosts support DHCPv6,
   special care must be taken to prevent stateless autoconfiguration
   anyway (and if applicable) by sending RA with all announced prefixes
   without the A-bit set.

   The mapping between data-link layer address and the IPv6 address can
   be secured by using switches implementing the SAVI [RFC7513]
   algorithms.  Of course, this also requires that data-link layer
   address is protected by using layer-2 mechanism such as
   [IEEE-802.1X].

2.6.1.6.  RADIUS Accounting Log

   For interfaces where the user is authenticated via a RADIUS [RFC2866]
   server, and if RADIUS accounting is enabled, then the RADIUS server
   receives accounting Acct-Status-Type records at the start and at the
   end of the connection which include all IPv6 (and IPv4) addresses
   used by the user.  This technique can be used notably for Wi-Fi
   networks with Wi-Fi Protected Address (WPA) or any other IEEE 802.1X
   [IEEE-802.1X]wired interface on an Ethernet switch.

2.6.1.7.  Other Data Sources

   There are other data sources that must be kept exactly as in the IPv4
   network:

   o  historical mapping of IPv6 addresses to users of remote access
      VPN;




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  historical mapping of MAC address to switch interface in a wired
      network.

2.6.2.  Use of Collected Data

   This section leverages the data collected as described before
   (Section 2.6.1) in order to achieve several security benefits.

2.6.2.1.  Forensic

   The forensic use case is when the network operator must locate an
   IPv6 address that was present in the network at a certain time or is
   still currently in the network.

   The source of information can be, in decreasing order, neighbor
   cache, DHCP lease file.  Then, the procedure is:

   1.  based on the IPv6 prefix of the IPv6 address find the router(s)
       which are used to reach this prefix;

   2.  based on this limited set of routers, on the incident time and on
       IPv6 address to retrieve the data-link address from live neighbor
       cache, from the historical data of the neighbor cache, or from
       the DHCP lease file;

   3.  based on the data-link layer address, look-up on which switch
       interface was this data-link layer address.  In the case of
       wireless LAN, the RADIUS log should have the mapping between user
       identification and the MAC address.

   At the end of the process, the interface the host originating
   malicious activity or the username which was abused for malicious
   activity has been determined.

2.6.2.2.  Inventory

   RFC 7707 [RFC7707] (which obsoletes RFC 5157 [RFC5157]) is about the
   difficulties to scan an IPv6 network due to the vast number of IPv6
   addresses per link.  This has the side effect of making the inventory
   task difficult in an IPv6 network while it was trivial to do in an
   IPv4 network (a simple enumeration of all IPv4 addresses, followed by
   a ping and a TCP/UDP port scan).  Getting an inventory of all
   connected devices is of prime importance for a secure operation of a
   network.

   There are many ways to do an inventory of an IPv6 network.





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   The first technique is to use the IPfix information and extract the
   list of all IPv6 source addresses to find all IPv6 nodes that sent
   packets through a router.  This is very efficient but alas will not
   discover silent node that never transmitted such packets... Also, it
   must be noted that link-local addresses will never be discovered by
   this means.

   The second way is again to use the collected neighbor cache content
   to find all IPv6 addresses in the cache.  This process will also
   discover all link-local addresses.  See Section 2.6.1.4.

   Another way works only for local network, it consists in sending a
   ICMP ECHO_REQUEST to the link-local multicast address ff02::1 which
   is all IPv6 nodes on the network.  All nodes should reply to this
   ECHO_REQUEST per [RFC4443].

   Other techniques involve enumerating the DNS zones, especially
   looking at reverse DNS records and CNAMES.  Or scanning for DNS
   misconfigurations to find DNS servers that send NXDOMAIN instead of
   NOERROR for non-existing nodes with children, which violates RFC8020
   [RFC8020].

   Other techniques involve obtaining data from DNS, parsing log files,
   leveraging service discovery such as mDNS RFC6761 [RFC6762] and
   RFC6763 [RFC6763].

   Enumerating DNS zones, especially looking at reverse DNS records and
   CNAMES, can be done by exploiting RFC8020 [RFC8020].  As already
   metioned in RFC7707 [RFC7707], this allows an attacker to prune the
   IPv6 reverse DNS tree, and hence enumerate it in a feasible time.
   Furthermore, authoritative servers that allow zone transfers (AXFR)
   may be a further information source.

2.6.2.3.  Correlation

   In an IPv4 network, it is easy to correlate multiple logs, for
   example to find events related to a specific IPv4 address.  A simple
   Unix grep command was enough to scan through multiple text-based
   files and extract all lines relevant to a specific IPv4 address.

   In an IPv6 network, this is slightly more difficult because different
   character strings can express the same IPv6 address.  Therefore, the
   simple Unix grep command cannot be used.  Moreover, an IPv6 node can
   have multiple IPv6 addresses.

   In order to do correlation in IPv6-related logs, it is advised to
   have all logs with canonical IPv6 addresses.  Then, the neighbor
   cache current (or historical) data set must be searched to find the



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   data-link layer address of the IPv6 address.  Then, the current and
   historical neighbor cache data sets must be searched for all IPv6
   addresses associated to this data-link layer address: this is the
   search set.  The last step is to search in all log files (containing
   only IPv6 address in canonical format) for any IPv6 addresses in the
   search set.

2.6.2.4.  Abnormal Behavior Detection

   Abnormal behaviors (such as network scanning, spamming, denial of
   service) can be detected in the same way as in an IPv4 network

   o  sudden increase of traffic detected by interface counter (SNMP) or
      by aggregated traffic from IPfix records [RFC7012];

   o  change of traffic pattern (number of connection per second, number
      of connection per host...) with the use of IPfix [RFC7012]

2.6.3.  Summary

   While some data sources (IPfix, MIB, switch CAM tables, logs, ...)
   used in IPv4 are also used in the secure operation of an IPv6
   network, the DHCPv6 lease file is less reliable and the neighbor
   cache is of prime importance.

   The fact that there are multiple ways to express in a character
   string the same IPv6 address renders the use of filters mandatory
   when correlation must be done.

2.7.  Transition/Coexistence Technologies

   As it is expected that network will not run in a pure IPv6-only way,
   the different transition mechanisms must be deployed and operated in
   a secure way.  This section proposes operational guidelines for the
   most known and deployed transition techniques.

2.7.1.  Dual Stack

   Dual stack is often the first deployment choice for most existing
   network operators without an MPLS core where 6PE RFC4798 [RFC4798] is
   quite common.  Dual stacking the network offers some advantages over
   other transition mechanisms.  Firstly, it is easy to turn on without
   impacting normal IPv4 operations.  Secondly, perhaps more
   importantly, it is easier to troubleshoot when things break.  Dual
   stack allows you to gradually turn IPv4 operations down when your
   IPv6 network is ready for prime time.  On the other, the operators
   have to manage two networks with the added complexities.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   From an operational security perspective, this now means that you
   have twice the exposure.  One needs to think about protecting both
   protocols now.  At a minimum, the IPv6 portion of a dual stacked
   network should maintain parity with IPv4 from a security policy point
   of view.  Typically, the following methods are employed to protect
   IPv4 networks at the edge:

   o  ACLs to permit or deny traffic

   o  Firewalls with stateful packet inspection

   It is recommended that these ACLs and/or firewalls be additionally
   configured to protect IPv6 communications.  Also, given the end-to-
   end connectivity that IPv6 provides, it is also recommended that
   hosts be fortified against threats.  General device hardening
   guidelines are provided in Section 2.8

   For many years, all host operating systems have IPv6 enabled by
   default, so, it is possible even in an 'IPv4-only' network to attack
   layer-2 adjacent victims over IPv6 link-local address or over a
   global IPv6 address is rogue RA or rogue DHCPv6 addresses are
   provided by an attacker.

2.7.2.  Transition Mechanisms

   There are many tunnels used for specific use cases.  Except when
   protected by IPsec [RFC4301], all those tunnels have a couple of
   security issues (most of them being described in RFC 6169 [RFC6169]);

   o  tunnel injection: a malevolent person knowing a few pieces of
      information (for example the tunnel endpoints and the used
      protocol) can forge a packet which looks like a legit and valid
      encapsulated packet that will gladly be accepted by the
      destination tunnel endpoint, this is a specific case of spoofing;

   o  traffic interception: no confidentiality is provided by the tunnel
      protocols (without the use of IPsec), therefore anybody on the
      tunnel path can intercept the traffic and have access to the
      clear-text IPv6 packet;

   o  service theft: as there is no authorization, even a non authorized
      user can use a tunnel relay for free (this is a specific case of
      tunnel injection);

   o  reflection attack: another specific use case of tunnel injection
      where the attacker injects packets with an IPv4 destination
      address not matching the IPv6 address causing the first tunnel
      endpoint to re-encapsulate the packet to the destination... Hence,



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


      the final IPv4 destination will not see the original IPv4 address
      but only one IPv4 address of the relay router.

   o  bypassing security policy: if a firewall or an IPS is on the path
      of the tunnel, then it will probably neither inspect not detect an
      malevolent IPv6 traffic contained in the tunnel.

   To mitigate the bypassing of security policies, it is recomended to
   block all default configuration tunnels by denying all IPv4 traffic
   matching:

   o  IP protocol 41: this will block ISATAP (Section 2.7.2.2), 6to4
      (Section 2.7.2.4), 6rd (Section 2.7.2.5) as well as 6in4
      (Section 2.7.2.1) tunnels;

   o  IP protocol 47: this will block GRE (Section 2.7.2.1) tunnels;

   o  UDP protocol 3544: this will block the default encapsulation of
      Teredo (Section 2.7.2.3) tunnels.

   Ingress filtering [RFC2827] should also be applied on all tunnel
   endpoints if applicable to prevent IPv6 address spoofing.

   As several of the tunnel techniques share the same encapsulation
   (i.e.  IPv4 protocol 41) and embed the IPv4 address in the IPv6
   address, there are a set of well-known looping attacks described in
   RFC 6324 [RFC6324], this RFC also proposes mitigation techniques.

2.7.2.1.  Site-to-Site Static Tunnels

   Site-to-site static tunnels are described in RFC 2529 [RFC2529] and
   in GRE [RFC2784].  As the IPv4 endpoints are statically configured
   and are not dynamic they are slightly more secure (bi-directional
   service theft is mostly impossible) but traffic interception and
   tunnel injection are still possible.  Therefore, the use of IPsec
   [RFC4301] in transport mode and protecting the encapsulated IPv4
   packets is recommended for those tunnels.  Alternatively, IPsec in
   tunnel mode can be used to transport IPv6 traffic over a non-trusted
   IPv4 network.

2.7.2.2.  ISATAP

   ISATAP tunnels [RFC5214] are mainly used within a single
   administrative domain and to connect a single IPv6 host to the IPv6
   network.  This means that endpoints and and the tunnel endpoint are
   usually managed by a single entity; therefore, audit trail and strict
   anti-spoofing are usually possible and this raises the overall
   security.



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   Special care must be taken to avoid looping attack by implementing
   the measures of RFC 6324 [RFC6324] and of RFC6964 [RFC6964].

   IPsec [RFC4301] in transport or tunnel mode can be used to secure the
   IPv4 ISATAP traffic to provide IPv6 traffic confidentiality and
   prevent service theft.

2.7.2.3.  Teredo

   Teredo tunnels [RFC4380] are mainly used in a residential environment
   because that can easily traverse an IPv4 NAT-PT device thanks to its
   UDP encapsulation and they connect a single host to the IPv6
   Internet.  Teredo shares the same issues as other tunnels: no
   authentication, no confidentiality, possible spoofing and reflection
   attacks.

   IPsec [RFC4301] for the transported IPv6 traffic is recommended.

   The biggest threat to Teredo is probably for IPv4-only network as
   Teredo has been designed to easily traverse IPV4 NAT-PT devices which
   are quite often co-located with a stateful firewall.  Therefore, if
   the stateful IPv4 firewall allows unrestricted UDP outbound and
   accept the return UDP traffic, then Teredo actually punches a hole in
   this firewall for all IPv6 traffic to the Internet and from the
   Internet.  While host policies can be deployed to block Teredo in an
   IPv4-only network in order to avoid this firewall bypass, it would be
   more efficient to block all UDP outbound traffic at the IPv4 firewall
   if deemed possible (of course, at least port 53 should be left open
   for DNS traffic).

   Teredo is now mostly never used and it is no more automated in most
   environment, so, it is less of a threat.

2.7.2.4.  6to4

   6to4 tunnels [RFC3056] require a public routable IPv4 address in
   order to work correctly.  They can be used to provide either one IPv6
   host connectivity to the IPv6 Internet or multiple IPv6 networks
   connectivity to the IPv6 Internet.  The 6to4 relay is usually the
   anycast address defined in RFC3068 [RFC3068] which has been
   deprecated by RFC7526 [RFC7526], and is no more used by recent
   Operating Systems.  Some security considerations are explained in
   RFC3694 [RFC3964].

   RFC6343 [RFC6343] points out that if an operator provides well-
   managed servers and relays for 6to4, non-encapsulated IPv6 packets
   will pass through well- defined points (the native IPv6 interfaces of
   those servers and relays) at which security mechanisms may be



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   applied.  Client usage of 6to4 by default is now discouraged, and
   significant precautions are needed to avoid operational problems.

2.7.2.5.  6rd

   While 6rd tunnels share the same encapsulation as 6to4 tunnels
   (Section 2.7.2.4), they are designed to be used within a single SP
   domain, in other words they are deployed in a more constrained
   environment than 6to4 tunnels and have little security issues except
   lack of confidentiality.  The security considerations (Section 12) of
   RFC5969 [RFC5969] describes how to secure the 6rd tunnels.

   IPsec [RFC4301] for the transported IPv6 traffic can be used if
   confidentiality is important.

2.7.2.6.  6PE and 6VPE

   Organizations using MPLS in their core can also use 6PE [RFC4798] and
   6VPE RFC4659 [RFC4659] to enable IPv6 access over MPLS.  As 6PE and
   6VPE are really similar to BGP/MPLS IP VPN described in RFC4364
   [RFC4364], the security of these networks is also similar to the one
   described in RFC4381 [RFC4381].  It relies on:

   o  Address space, routing and traffic seperation with the help of VRF
      (only applicable to 6VPE);

   o  Hiding the IPv4 core, hence removing all attacks against
      P-routers;

   o  Securing the routing protocol between CE and PE, in the case of
      6PE and 6VPE, link-local addresses (see [RFC7404]) can be used and
      as these addresses cannot be reached from outside of the link, the
      security of 6PE and 6VPE is even higher than the IPv4 BGP/MPLS IP
      VPN.

2.7.2.7.  DS-Lite

   DS-lite is more a translation mechanism and is therefore analyzed
   further (Section 2.7.3.3) in this document.

2.7.2.8.  Mapping of Address and Port

   With the tunnel and encapsulation versions of mapping of Address and
   Port (MAP-E [RFC7597] and MAP-T [RFC7599]), the access network is
   purely an IPv6 network and MAP protocols are used to give IPv4 hosts
   on the subscriber network, access to IPv4 hosts on the Internet.  The
   subscriber router does stateful operations in order to map all
   internal IPv4 addresses and layer-4 ports to the IPv4 address and the



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   set of layer-4 ports received through MAP configuration process.  The
   SP equipment always does stateless operations (either decapsulation
   or stateless translation).  Therefore, as opposed to Section 2.7.3.3
   there is no state-exhaustion DoS attack against the SP equipment
   because there is no state and there is no operation caused by a new
   layer-4 connection (no logging operation).

   The SP MAP equipment MUST implement all the security considerations
   of [RFC7597]; notably, ensuring that the mapping of the IPv4 address
   and port are consistent with the configuration.  As MAP has a
   predictable IPv4 address and port mapping, the audit logs are easier
   to manager.

2.7.3.  Translation Mechanisms

   Translation mechanisms between IPv4 and IPv6 networks are alternative
   coexistence strategies while networks transition to IPv6.  While a
   framework is described in [RFC6144] the specific security
   considerations are documented in each individual mechanism.  For the
   most part they specifically mention interference with IPsec or DNSSEC
   deployments, how to mitigate spoofed traffic and what some effective
   filtering strategies may be.

2.7.3.1.  Carrier-Grade Nat (CGN)

   Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), also called NAT444 CGN or Large Scale NAT
   (LSN) or SP NAT is described in [RFC6264] and is utilized as an
   interim measure to prolong the use of IPv4 in a large service
   provider network until the provider can deploy and effective IPv6
   solution.  [RFC6598] requested a specific IANA allocated /10 IPv4
   address block to be used as address space shared by all access
   networks using CGN.  This has been allocated as 100.64.0.0/10.

   Section 13 of [RFC6269] lists some specific security-related issues
   caused by large scale address sharing.  The Security Considerations
   section of [RFC6598] also lists some specific mitigation techniques
   for potential misuse of shared address space.

   RFC7422 [RFC7422] suggests the use of deterministic address mapping
   in order to reduce logging requirements for CGN.  The idea is to have
   an algorithm mapping back and forth the internal subscriber to public
   ports.

2.7.3.2.  NAT64/DNS64

   Stateful NAT64 translation [RFC6146] allows IPv6-only clients to
   contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP.  It can be used
   in conjunction with DNS64 [RFC6147], a mechanism which synthesizes



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   AAAA records from existing A records.  There is also a stateless
   NAT64 [RFC6145] which is similar for the security aspects with the
   added benefit of being stateless, so, less prone to a state
   exhaustion attack.

   The Security Consideration sections of [RFC6146] and [RFC6147] list
   the comprehensive issues.  A specific issue with the use of NAT64 is
   that it will interfere with most IPsec deployments unless UDP
   encapsulation is used.  DNS64 has an incidence on DNSSEC see section
   3.1 of [RFC7050].

2.7.3.3.  DS-Lite

   Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333] is a transition technique that
   enables a service provider to share IPv4 addresses among customers by
   combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and
   Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT).

   Security considerations with respect to DS-Lite mainly revolve around
   logging data, preventing DoS attacks from rogue devices (as the AFTR
   function is stateful) and restricting service offered by the AFTR
   only to registered customers.

   Section 11 of [RFC6333] describes important security issues
   associated with this technology.

2.8.  General Device Hardening

   There are many environments which rely too much on the network
   infrastructure to disallow malicious traffic to get access to
   critical hosts.  In new IPv6 deployments it has been common to see
   IPv6 traffic enabled but none of the typical access control
   mechanisms enabled for IPv6 device access.  With the possibility of
   network device configuration mistakes and the growth of IPv6 in the
   overall Internet it is important to ensure that all individual
   devices are hardened agains miscreant behavior.

   The following guidelines should be used to ensure appropriate
   hardening of the host, be it an individual computer or router,
   firewall, load-balancer,server, etc device.

   o  Restrict access to the device to authorized individuals

   o  Monitor and audit access to the device

   o  Turn off any unused services on the end node





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  Understand which IPv6 addresses are being used to source traffic
      and change defaults if necessary

   o  Use cryptographically protected protocols for device management if
      possible (SCP, SNMPv3, SSH, TLS, etc)

   o  Use host firewall capabilities to control traffic that gets
      processed by upper layer protocols

   o  Use virus scanners to detect malicious programs

3.  Enterprises Specific Security Considerations

   Enterprises generally have robust network security policies in place
   to protect existing IPv4 networks.  These policies have been
   distilled from years of experiential knowledge of securing IPv4
   networks.  At the very least, it is recommended that enterprise
   networks have parity between their security policies for both
   protocol versions.

   Security considerations in the enterprise can be broadly categorized
   into two sections - External and Internal.

3.1.  External Security Considerations:

   The external aspect deals with providing security at the edge or
   perimeter of the enterprise network where it meets the service
   providers network.  This is commonly achieved by enforcing a security
   policy either by implementing dedicated firewalls with stateful
   packet inspection or a router with ACLs.  A common default IPv4
   policy on firewalls that could easily be ported to IPv6 is to allow
   all traffic outbound while only allowing specific traffic, such as
   established sessions, inbound (see also [RFC6092]).  Here are a few
   more things that could enhance the default policy:

   o  Filter internal-use IPv6 addresses at the perimeter

   o  Discard packets from and to bogon and reserved space, see also
      [CYMRU]

   o  Accept certain ICMPv6 messages to allow proper operation of ND and
      PMTUD, see also [RFC4890]

   o  Filter specific extension headers by accepting only the required
      ones (white list approach) such as ESP, AH (not forgetting the
      required transport layers: ICMP, TCP, UDP, ...) , where possible
      at the edge and possibly inside the perimeter; see also
      [I-D.gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering]



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   o  Filter packets having an illegal IPv6 headers chain at the
      perimeter (and possible inside as well), see Section 2.2

   o  Filter unneeded services at the perimeter

   o  Implement anti-spoofing

   o  Implement appropriate rate-limiters and control-plane policers

3.2.  Internal Security Considerations:

   The internal aspect deals with providing security inside the
   perimeter of the network, including the end host.  The most
   significant concerns here are related to Neighbor Discovery.  At the
   network level, it is recommended that all security considerations
   discussed in Section 2.3 be reviewed carefully and the
   recommendations be considered in-depth as well.

   As mentioned in Section 2.6.2, care must be taken when running
   automated IPv6-in-IP4 tunnels.

   Hosts need to be hardened directly through security policy to protect
   against security threats.  The host firewall default capabilities
   have to be clearly understood, especially 3rd party ones which can
   have different settings for IPv4 or IPv6 default permit/deny
   behavior.  In some cases, 3rd party firewalls have no IPv6 support
   whereas the native firewall installed by default has it.  General
   device hardening guidelines are provided in Section 2.8

   It should also be noted that many hosts still use IPv4 for transport
   for things like RADIUS, TACACS+, SYSLOG, etc.  This will require some
   extra level of due diligence on the part of the operator.

4.  Service Providers Security Considerations

4.1.  BGP

   The threats and mitigation techniques are identical between IPv4 and
   IPv6.  Broadly speaking they are:

   o  Authenticating the TCP session;

   o  TTL security (which becomes hop-limit security in IPv6);

   o  Prefix Filtering.

   These are explained in more detail in section Section 2.5.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


4.1.1.  Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering

   RTBH [RFC5635] works identically in IPv4 and IPv6.  IANA has
   allocated 100::/64 as discard prefix RFC6666 [RFC6666].

4.2.  Transition Mechanism

   SP will typically use transition mechanisms such as 6rd, 6PE, MAP,
   DS-Lite which have been analyzed in the transition Section 2.7.2
   section.

4.3.  Lawful Intercept

   The Lawful Intercept requirements are similar for IPv6 and IPv4
   architectures and will be subject to the laws enforced in varying
   geographic regions.  The local issues with each jurisdiction can make
   this challenging and both corporate legal and privacy personnel
   should be involved in discussions pertaining to what information gets
   logged and what the logging retention policies will be.

   The target of interception will usually be a residential subscriber
   (e.g. his/her PPP session or physical line or CPE MAC address).  With
   the absence of NAT on the CPE, IPv6 has the provision to allow for
   intercepting the traffic from a single host (a /128 target) rather
   than the whole set of hosts of a subscriber (which could be a /48, a
   /60 or /64).

   In contrast, in mobile environments, since the 3GPP specifications
   allocate a /64 per device, it may be sufficient to intercept traffic
   from the /64 rather than specific /128's (since each time the device
   powers up it gets a new IID).

   A sample architecture which was written for informational purposes is
   found in [RFC3924].

5.  Residential Users Security Considerations

   The IETF Homenet working group is working on how IPv6 residential
   network should be done; this obviously includes operational security
   considerations; but, this is still work in progress.

   Residential users have usually less experience and knowledge about
   security or networking.  As most of the recent hosts, smartphones,
   tablets have all IPv6 enabled by default, IPv6 security is important
   for those users.  Even with an IPv4-only ISP, those users can get
   IPv6 Internet access with the help of Teredo tunnels.  Several peer-
   to-peer programs (notably Bittorrent) support IPv6 and those programs
   can initiate a Teredo tunnel through the IPv4 residential gateway,



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   with the consequence of making the internal host reachable from any
   IPv6 host on the Internet.  It is therefore recommended that all host
   security products (personal firewall, ...) are configured with a
   dual-stack security policy.

   If the Residential Gateway has IPv6 connectivity, [RFC7084] (which
   obsoletes [RFC6204]) defines the requirements of an IPv6 CPE and does
   not take position on the debate of default IPv6 security policy as
   defined in [RFC6092]:

   o  outbound only: allowing all internally initiated connections and
      block all externally initiated ones, which is a common default
      security policy enforced by IPv4 Residential Gateway doing NAT-PT
      but it also breaks the end-to-end reachability promise of IPv6.
      [RFC6092] lists several recommendations to design such a CPE;

   o  open/transparent: allowing all internally and externally initiated
      connections, therefore restoring the end-to-end nature of the
      Internet for the IPv6 traffic but having a different security
      policy for IPv6 than for IPv4.

   [RFC6092] REC-49 states that a choice must be given to the user to
   select one of those two policies.

   There is also an alternate solution which has been deployed notably
   by Swisscom ([I-D.ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security]: open to all
   outbound and inbound connections at the exception of an handful of
   TCP and UDP ports known as vulnerable.

6.  Further Reading

   There are several documents that describe in more details the
   security of an IPv6 network; these documents are not written by the
   IETF but are listed here for your convenience:

   1.  Guidelines for the Secure Deployment of IPv6 [NIST]

   2.  North American IPv6 Task Force Technology Report - IPv6 Security
       Technology Paper [NAv6TF_Security]

   3.  IPv6 Security [IPv6_Security_Book]

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their useful
   comments: Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown,
   Markus deBruen, Tobias Fiebig, Fernando Gont, Jeffry Handal, Panos




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   Kampanakis, Erik Kline, Jouni Korhonen, Mark Lentczner, Bob
   Sleigh,Tarko Tikan (by alphabetical order).

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   This memo attempts to give an overview of security considerations of
   operating an IPv6 network both in an IPv6-only network and in
   utilizing the most widely deployed IPv4/IPv6 coexistence strategies.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC6104]  Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement
              Problem Statement", RFC 6104, DOI 10.17487/RFC6104,
              February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6104>.

   [RFC6105]  Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
              Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [CYMRU]    "Packet Filter and Route Filter Recommendation for IPv6 at
              xSP routers", <http://www.team-
              cymru.org/ReadingRoom/Templates/IPv6Routers/
              xsp-recommendations.html>.

   [I-D.chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd]
              Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., Thubert, P., and M.
              Wasserman, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Optimizations for
              Wired and Wireless Networks", draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-
              6man-efficient-nd-07 (work in progress), February 2015.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [I-D.gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering]
              Gont, F., Will, W., and R. Bonica, "Recommendations on
              Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension
              Headers", draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-02 (work in
              progress), August 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling]
              Baker, F. and R. Bonica, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
              Extension Header", draft-ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling-03
              (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security]
              Gysi, M., Leclanche, G., Vyncke, E., and R. Anfinsen,
              "Balanced Security for IPv6 Residential CPE", draft-ietf-
              v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security-01 (work in progress),
              December 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host]
              Brzozowski, J. and G. Velde, "Unique IPv6 Prefix Per
              Host", draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-13
              (work in progress), October 2017.

   [I-D.kampanakis-6man-ipv6-eh-parsing]
              Kampanakis, P., "Implementation Guidelines for parsing
              IPv6 Extension Headers", draft-kampanakis-6man-ipv6-eh-
              parsing-01 (work in progress), August 2014.

   [I-D.thubert-savi-ra-throttler]
              Thubert, P., "Throttling RAs on constrained interfaces",
              draft-thubert-savi-ra-throttler-01 (work in progress),
              June 2012.

   [IEEE-802.1X]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks - Port-Based Network Access Control", IEEE Std
              802.1X-2010, February 2010.

   [IPv6_Security_Book]
              Hogg and Vyncke, "IPv6 Security", ISBN 1-58705-594-5,
              Publisher CiscoPress, December 2008.

   [NAv6TF_Security]
              Kaeo, Green, Bound, and Pouffary, "North American IPv6
              Task Force Technology Report - IPv6 Security Technology
              Paper", 2006, <http://www.ipv6forum.com/dl/white/
              NAv6TF_Security_Report.pdf>.





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [NIST]     Frankel, Graveman, Pearce, and Rooks, "Guidelines for the
              Secure Deployment of IPv6", 2010,
              <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-119/
              sp800-119.pdf>.

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc826>.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.

   [RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
              Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2529, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2529>.

   [RFC2740]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
              RFC 2740, DOI 10.17487/RFC2740, December 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2740>.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
              May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.

   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2866, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2866>.

   [RFC2993]  Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2993, November 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2993>.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
              2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.






Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC3068]  Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
              RFC 3068, DOI 10.17487/RFC3068, June 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3068>.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3627]  Savola, P., "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
              Considered Harmful", RFC 3627, DOI 10.17487/RFC3627,
              September 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3627>.

   [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
              Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats",
              RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>.

   [RFC3924]  Baker, F., Foster, B., and C. Sharp, "Cisco Architecture
              for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks", RFC 3924,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3924, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3924>.

   [RFC3964]  Savola, P. and C. Patel, "Security Considerations for
              6to4", RFC 3964, DOI 10.17487/RFC3964, December 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3964>.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
              "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC4293]  Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
              Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, DOI 10.17487/RFC4293,
              April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.

   [RFC4381]  Behringer, M., "Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP
              Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4381,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4381, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4381>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
              for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.

   [RFC4649]  Volz, B., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
              (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option", RFC 4649,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4649, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4649>.

   [RFC4659]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
              IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.

   [RFC4798]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
              Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4864]  Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
              E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4864, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4864>.

   [RFC4890]  Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
              ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC4942]  Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
              Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4942, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4942>.

   [RFC5157]  Chown, T., "IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning",
              RFC 5157, DOI 10.17487/RFC5157, March 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5157>.

   [RFC5214]  Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
              Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5214, March 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5214>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC5635]  Kumari, W. and D. McPherson, "Remote Triggered Black Hole
              Filtering with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)",
              RFC 5635, DOI 10.17487/RFC5635, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5635>.

   [RFC5952]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
              Address Text Representation", RFC 5952,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC5969]  Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
              RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
              Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
              Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.

   [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

   [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6164, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6164>.

   [RFC6169]  Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
              Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6169, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6169>.

   [RFC6192]  Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the
              Router Control Plane", RFC 6192, DOI 10.17487/RFC6192,
              March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6192>.

   [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, Ed., "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", RFC 6204, DOI 10.17487/RFC6204, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6204>.



Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC6221]  Miles, D., Ed., Ooghe, S., Dec, W., Krishnan, S., and A.
              Kavanagh, "Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent", RFC 6221,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6221, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6221>.

   [RFC6264]  Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental
              Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6264, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6264>.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
              P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.

   [RFC6302]  Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,
              "Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers",
              BCP 162, RFC 6302, DOI 10.17487/RFC6302, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6302>.

   [RFC6324]  Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using
              IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
              Mitigations", RFC 6324, DOI 10.17487/RFC6324, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6324>.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.

   [RFC6343]  Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
              RFC 6343, DOI 10.17487/RFC6343, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6343>.

   [RFC6434]  Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
              Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.

   [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
              T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
              Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
              RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.




Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC6506]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
              Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 6506,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6506, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6506>.

   [RFC6547]  George, W., "RFC 3627 to Historic Status", RFC 6547,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6547, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6547>.

   [RFC6564]  Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
              M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
              RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.

   [RFC6583]  Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
              Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.

   [RFC6598]  Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
              M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
              Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6598>.

   [RFC6620]  Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS
              SAVI: First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation
              Improvement for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses",
              RFC 6620, DOI 10.17487/RFC6620, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6620>.

   [RFC6666]  Hilliard, N. and D. Freedman, "A Discard Prefix for IPv6",
              RFC 6666, DOI 10.17487/RFC6666, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6666>.

   [RFC6762]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.

   [RFC6810]  Bush, R. and R. Austein, "The Resource Public Key
              Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol", RFC 6810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6810, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6810>.





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC6964]  Templin, F., "Operational Guidance for IPv6 Deployment in
              IPv4 Sites Using the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel
              Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 6964,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6964, May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6964>.

   [RFC6980]  Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
              with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6980, August 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6980>.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

   [RFC7012]  Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
              for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.

   [RFC7039]  Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, Ed.,
              "Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI) Framework",
              RFC 7039, DOI 10.17487/RFC7039, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7039>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
              the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
              RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.

   [RFC7084]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.

   [RFC7112]  Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
              Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7112, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7112>.





Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC7113]  Gont, F., "Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router
              Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)", RFC 7113,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7113, February 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7113>.

   [RFC7166]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
              Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.

   [RFC7217]  Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
              Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.

   [RFC7381]  Chittimaneni, K., Chown, T., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V.,
              Pouffary, Y., and E. Vyncke, "Enterprise IPv6 Deployment
              Guidelines", RFC 7381, DOI 10.17487/RFC7381, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7381>.

   [RFC7404]  Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
              Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404>.

   [RFC7422]  Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K.,
              and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
              Logging in Carrier-Grade NAT Deployments", RFC 7422,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7422, December 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7422>.

   [RFC7454]  Durand, J., Pepelnjak, I., and G. Doering, "BGP Operations
              and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
              February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.

   [RFC7513]  Bi, J., Wu, J., Yao, G., and F. Baker, "Source Address
              Validation Improvement (SAVI) Solution for DHCP",
              RFC 7513, DOI 10.17487/RFC7513, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7513>.

   [RFC7526]  Troan, O. and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Deprecating the Anycast
              Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", BCP 196, RFC 7526,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7526, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7526>.






Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


   [RFC7597]  Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
              Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
              Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.

   [RFC7599]  Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
              and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
              Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.

   [RFC7610]  Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield:
              Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199,
              RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610>.

   [RFC7707]  Gont, F. and T. Chown, "Network Reconnaissance in IPv6
              Networks", RFC 7707, DOI 10.17487/RFC7707, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7707>.

   [RFC7721]  Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
              Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
              RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7721>.

   [RFC7872]  Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
              "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
              Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.

   [RFC8020]  Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Huque, "NXDOMAIN: There Really Is
              Nothing Underneath", RFC 8020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8020,
              November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8020>.

   [RFC8064]  Gont, F., Cooper, A., Thaler, D., and W. Liu,
              "Recommendation on Stable IPv6 Interface Identifiers",
              RFC 8064, DOI 10.17487/RFC8064, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8064>.

   [SCANNING]
              "Mapping the Great Void - Smarter scanning for IPv6",
              <http://www.caida.org/workshops/isma/1202/slides/
              aims1202_rbarnes.pdf>.







Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 47]


Internet-Draft                 OPsec IPv6                   October 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Eric Vyncke (editor)
   Cisco
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2 778 4677
   Email: evyncke@cisco.com


   Kiran K. Chittimaneni
   Dropbox Inc.
   185 Berry Street, Suite 400
   San Francisco, CA  94107
   USA

   Email: kk@dropbox.com


   Merike Kaeo
   Double Shot Security
   3518 Fremont Ave N 363
   Seattle  98103
   USA

   Phone: +12066696394
   Email: merike@doubleshotsecurity.com






















Vyncke, et al.             Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 48]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/