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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Internet Engineering Task Force                                P. Savola
Internet Draft                                                 CSC/FUNET
Expiration Date: May 2002
                                                           November 2001

        Security of IPv6 Routing Header and Home Address Options


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see


   All IPv6 nodes must be able to process Routing Header [IPV6] and Home
   Address [MIPV6] Options.  With these, packet filter access lists can
   be tricked (among other things) as the destination and source
   addresses, respectively, are being rewritten as the packet traverses
   the network.  Some of the security considerations of these features
   are analyzed, and a few possible solutions presented.  It will be
   shown that with the current architecture, the network-based security
   does not seem to scale to the requirements of Mobile IPv6; it seems
   possible that unless security is taken seriously when implementing
   the nodes, the new Mobile IPv6 requirements might not be allowed to
   be used at all in some circumstances.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  ...............................................   2
     1.1.  Terminology  ............................................   3
   2.  Routing Header  .............................................   4
     2.1.  The Traffic Filtering Problem  ..........................   4
     2.2.  The Denial of Service Reflector Problem  ................   5
     2.3.  The ICMP Traceback Avoidance Problem  ...................   6
     2.4.  Some Requirements for Routing Header Use  ...............   7
     2.5.  Solutions  ..............................................   7
       2.5.1.  Node-based Approach  ................................   7
       2.5.2.  Second Node-based Approach  .........................   8
       2.5.3.  Network-based Approach  .............................   9
       2.5.4.  New Routing Header Type  ............................  10
   3.  Home Address Option  ........................................  10
     3.1.  The Source Address Spoofing Problem  ....................  11
     3.2.  The Double Spoofing Problem  ............................  12
     3.3.  The Protocol Reflection and Untraceability Problem  .....  13
     3.4.  Some Requirements for Home Address Option Use  ..........  14
     3.5.  Solutions  ..............................................  14
       3.5.1.  Node-based Approach  ................................  14
       3.5.2.  Network-based Approach  .............................  15
   4.  Conclusions  ................................................  15
   5.  Security Considerations  ....................................  16
   6.  Acknowledgements  ...........................................  16
   7.  References  .................................................  17
   Author's Address  ...............................................  17

1. Introduction

   All IPv6 nodes must be able to process Routing Header [IPV6] and Home
   Address [MIPV6] Options.  With these, packet filter access lists can
   be tricked (among other things) as the destination and source
   addresses, respectively, are being rewritten as the packet traverses
   the network.

   Some of the security considerations of these features are analyzed,
   and a few possible solutions presented.

   For both Routing Header and Home Address options, basically two
   approaches to enhance security are put forward.  It will be shown
   that with the current architecture, the network-based security will
   not seem to scale to the requirements of Mobile IPv6; it seems
   possible that unless security is taken seriously when implementing
   the nodes, the new Mobile IPv6 requirements might not be allowed to

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   be used at all in some circumstances.

   In many cases, ingress and egress filtering [FILTERING] are being
   performed.  Unfortunately, the filtering is not being done
   everywhere; the existance of it cannot be relied on.  Routing Header
   and especially Home Address options are very harmful if at least
   ingress filtering is not being performed, but to some extent, they
   can still be used quite effectively if filtering is in place too.

   Routing Header and Home Address Option can be used in helping to hide
   the traces of DoS attacks from certain tracing methods. Here, ICMP
   Traceback [ITRACE] and Reverse ICMP Traceback [REVITRACE] are used as
   examples; the issues most probably affect other mechanisms as well.

   A lot of discussion here is based on the fact that in the real world,
   packet filtering is a practical requirement for safe operation;
   almost everyone uses it.  Therefore, it is important that it can be
   performed in a predictable fashion.

   The security of Binding Updates is another very crucial issue but
   that is already discussed in other proposals, including [BUSEC].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.1. Terminology

   Ingress filtering

        Filtering on source addresses from the direction of a site to
        the Internet.  This is often done to keep the site from using
        wrong source addresses.

   Egress filtering

        Filtering on source addresses from the direction of the Internet
        to the site.  This is often done to keep packets with IP
        addresses belonging to the site arriving in the site from the

   Reflected attacks

        Attacks that are launched by the attacker, using a third party
        as a proxy, against the victim.  Here, the term is used in a
        more generic sense than in, for example, [PAXSON].

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

2. Routing Header

   All IPv6 nodes must be able to process Routing Headers.  It is
   implied, even though not clearly stated, that all nodes (including
   hosts) must also have that processing enabled.

   Here, "Routing Header" is used as a synonym for "Type 0 Routing
   Header" unless explicitly stated otherwise as it is the only type
   defined at the moment.

   There are several problems with Routing Headers:

     - Getting around access controls if done with destination address
     - The behaviour is difficult to disable if one wants to support
       Mobile IPv6
     - Can be used in reflected Denial of Service attacks
     - Can be used to make tracing the path of DoS attacks with iTrace
       [ITRACE] more difficult.

   These are discussed at more length below.

2.1. The Traffic Filtering Problem

   Because destination address is replaced at every Routing Header
   processing point, it's impossible to perform traffic filtering based
   on destination addresses.  An example:

           host1 --- rtr1 - Internet - fwrtr2 -+- webserver
                                               +- host2

   Assume that fwrtr2 is performing packet filtering on the internal
   interface.  The rules could be like:

         allow proto tcp from any to webserver port 80
         deny  proto tcp from any to any

   Here, malicious host1 would write packets as follows:

         rtheader=host2, segments left=1
         payload proto=tcp, dport=80

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   It would pass the packet filter checks fine, and be processed at
   webserver.  When being forwarded directly from there to host2, the
   packet would look like:

         rtheader=webserver, segments left=0
         payload proto=tcp, dport=80

   If the packet had been sent directly to host2 without Routing Header,
   it would have been denied in the packet filter access lists.

   Even though webserver is configured as a Host, it will forward
   packets with Routing Header.  This breaks the principle of least
   surprise, and as any node can be used as a traffic reflector, the
   network is very difficult to secure.

   The same naturally applies to Routers too, but they usually don't
   have many publically available services, so they aren't optimal for
   this kind of "access list avoidance via a reflector" attack.

2.2. The Denial of Service Reflector Problem

   This attack only makes sense if source addresses can be spoofed.
   Some issues about this are also covered under "Home Address Option"
   sections.  One can avoid being used in this reflecting attack by
   performing proper ingress filtering at the "reflector" site.

   Assume the scenario:

           attacker1 --- rtr1 - Internet - rtr2 --- reflector2

   Now, assuming that ingress filtering is not done at rtr1 (from the
   direction of attacker1) and rtr2 (from the direction of reflector2),
   one could packets that would be sent anonymously to victim3 via

         src=spoofedX (attacker1)
         rtheader=victim3, segments left=1

   This way, if victim3 wants to investigate from where the packets are
   coming from, first the source would appear to be spoofedX; it may or
   may not be obvious to victim3 whether the address is spoofed.  Then,

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   investigating Routing Header, the trails would lead to reflector2,
   where they would disappear.

   However, it should be noted that reliance on Routing Header trails is
   very chancy at best.  The attacker could very well construct a packet
   with false routing header entries, like:

         src=spoofedX (attacker1)
         rtheader=someoneA,victim3, segments left=1

   Now only one victim would be be used (because segments left is one
   smaller than it normally should be) and one node would be inserted
   for false trails.  Segments left could have been 0 at the sender, for
   all the destination knows.

   One should note that even if rtr2 would be performing ingress
   filtering, rtr2 itself, if the filtering is not carefully
   implemented, is also susceptible to this.

   It should be noted that one can never be safe from this, but if one
   would be able to easily disable routing header processing (as it
   should be in Hosts at the very least), the damage might be more
   limited and controlling easier.

2.3. The ICMP Traceback Avoidance Problem

   ICMP Traceback [ITRACE] specifies a new method where intermediate
   routers may send ICMP Traceback messages probabilistically along the
   path of the packets to the destination address.  Among others, this
   can be used to trace the origin of Denial of Service attacks with
   forged source addresses.

   If the attacker inserts a Routing Header in the spoofed packets, the
   only iTrace messages to reach the final destination will be those
   that came from between the last Routing Header entry and the final
   destination.  To illustrate a simple scenario:

           attacker1 -- Internet -- rtr2 -- Internet -- victim3
                        (20 hops)           (10 hops)

   Here, iTrace messages from between attacker1 and rtr2 (the really
   interesting data) would be sent to rtr2, and from between rtr2 and
   victim3 to victim3.  Rtr2 would probably just discard the messages,
   having no knowledge what to do with them.  Victim3 would receive
   messages only from 10 last hops which would be next to unusable.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   Naturally, it would be possible to circulate the traffic via many
   different routers, possibly adding a few in the list for confusion
   (that is, using smaller segments left than the number of routers, as
   described above).

   One could revise the iTrace specification so that it'll send messages
   to every destination listed in the routing header, but it might be
   more appropriate just to acknowledge the problem; after all, victim3
   would know from the packets it receives that rtr2 should know the
   full path, and contact its adminitration.

2.4. Some Requirements for Routing Header Use

   One should not limit the flexibility of Routing Header usage too much
   by too strict constraints.  One could assume that it might be used
   for at least:

     - Mobile IPv6: packets are sent to the mobile node with the care-of
       address as destination address and Home Address as the last
       Routing Header entry.  These should be assigned on the same node.
       This way packets can be transmitted transparently between stable

     - Traffic engineering or multihoming: for example, one could want
       to choose the ISP dynamically by some fine-grained criteria (e.g.
       TCP destination port number) with an automatic use of Routing
       Header.  With this, the Routing Header processing nodes would
       often be publicly known routers (identifiable by specific
       configuration or an anycast address, for example) in a
       topologically important location.

2.5. Solutions

   Two node-based approaches are defined.  It is expected that only one
   would be chosen when it becomes more clear which one is best.

2.5.1. Node-based Approach

   Traffic engineering requirements are not difficult to meet; one just
   has to assume that most routers do have Routing Header processing
   enabled.  This does not create new significant security
   considerations, unless site's internal routers were to also do that.
   It can be assumed that responsible administrators turn off the
   feature on critical routers; Security Considerations section also
   discusses this issue.

   Mobile IPv6 is more difficult, as it requires that all mobile nodes
   are able to completely process Routing Header.  However, with MIPv6,

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 7]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   the maximum segments left value used is 1 when it reaches the
   destination network.  Taking this into consideration, we would be
   able to deduce additional new rules for processing Routing Headers
   (we're assuming here that Home Address would be assigned on the
   appropriate interface; please also see Security Considerations about

   If a node would have to process the Routing Header (that is,
   destination address equals the node and segments left > 0), it SHOULD
   check whether segments left equals 1, and if both the current
   destination address and to-be-swapped destination address in the
   Routing Header are both assigned to the same interface of the node
   and are both of the same zone [ADDRSCOPE], the Routing Header is here
   referred to as "Interface-local Routing Header".

   On Routers, further processing of Routing Headers SHOULD be
   configurable and SHOULD be enabled by default.

   On Hosts, further processing of Routing Headers MAY be configurable
   and MUST be disabled by default.

   Regardless of the general Routing Header processing setting, all
   nodes SHOULD still process "Interface-local" Routing Headers.
   Disabling this exception MAY also be configurable.

2.5.2. Second Node-based Approach

   This approach just tackles the current Routing Header use
   requirements (Mobility), and leaves the rest undefined; as the
   processing rule change would be rather simple, this might be the best
   way forward until it becomes clear for what else "Interface-local"
   Routing Headers would be needed for.  The revision would be as

   On Hosts, Routing Header processing MUST be supported, but the
   processing MUST NOT be enabled by default.  The enabling of the
   processing SHOULD be configurable.

   Regardless of the processing setting above, routing headers destined
   to the host are further processed if the following applies:

    type == 0 and segments left == 1 and,
     if the to-be-swapped address in Routing Header is either:

      1. a Home Address assigned to the node,

         the Routing Header MUST be processed in full.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 8]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

      2. or, an address which has been authorized in some way to be a
         valid target of routing header processing,

         the Routing Header MAY be processed in full.

2.5.3. Network-based Approach

   If the packet filters supported parsing Routing Header and performing
   checks for it, one could argue that there might not be need to change
   the processing in nodes.

   The problem is that intermediate nodes, for example packet filters,
   cannot distinguish mobile nodes from stationary nodes.  The
   distinguishing would only be possible if the node was located in such
   a way (usually a single point of failure) that every Binding Update
   would go through the intermediate node and it would keep state of
   mobile nodes in the internal network.  It might also be possible to
   keep record of the state via some AAA mechanism.

   If one assumes keeping state reliably cannot be done, one could
   perform filtering in general case if and only if either is known:

     - there are no mobile nodes in the internal network, either foreign
       or local.
     - the only mobile nodes in the internal network are foreign, only
       roaming in the internal network.

   The first scenario is trivial, but in the long run, probably too

   In the second scenario one would have to require that the packets
   with Routing Header must always "bounce out" of the internal network.

   One should note that if this "bouncing out" is allowed, anyone can
   use any node in the internal network as a traffic reflector if
   ingress filtering isn't being used.

   On the other hand, if one assumes the state of Mobile Bindings could
   be kept, one could derive rules on packets from outside to inside,
   for example:

     - Packets with Routing Header going to mobile node care-of
       Addresses are allowed if and only if they are "Interface-local".
     - If packet with Routing Header bounces inside the internal
       network, deny it by default (local policy issue).

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                   [Page 9]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

     - If packet with Routing Header bounces out of the internal
       network, deny it by default (mostly testing scenarios)
     - If packet with Routing Header bounces out of the internal
       network, so that the final destination and source addresses are
       equal, allow it by default (e.g. advanced traceroute, a special
       case from above)

2.5.4. New Routing Header Type

   A more radical approach might be to define a new Routing Header type.
   This type would be syntactically identical to Type 0 Routing Header,
   except it would have the requirement of "Interface-local" property,
   as discussed above in 2.3.1, for the last-to-be-swapped addresses.

   The "Interface-local" property would be a MUST to be observed at the
   receiving side; otherwise the packet would be discarded (or
   alternatively, delivered to the second-last address; the exact
   behaviour is TBD).

   This way, nodes communicating with mobile nodes would use this new
   Routing Header type, which could be easily identifiable by
   intermediate nodes (and passed through without too big worries about
   security), and the processing of Type 0 Routing Header could remain
   intact.  Of course, it would still be allowed to send "Interface-
   local" Routing Headers as Type 0, but practically the probability of
   it getting through might be smaller.

   A new Routing Header type would be of great help for both Node and
   Network-based approaches.

   An apparent problem of new Routing Header type is that all
   participating nodes should be able to recognize and process it.
   However, as MIPv6 is still work in progress, this might not be such a
   big obstacle after all.  One should note, however, that this might
   effectively hinder combining MIPv6-like Routing Header use with e.g.
   certain traffic engineering solutions, as the participating
   participating routers would have to be able to understand the new
   Routing Header type.

3. Home Address Option

   Home Address option of Mobile IPv6 must be processed in every node
   whether mobile or not.  The source address of a packet is replaced
   with the address in the Home Address option.  The packets don't need
   to be authenticated in any way.

   The problem with Home Address is that it allows trivial
   unidirectional spoofing (good for simple exploits, DoS attacks);

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   destinatation network's internal addresses can also be spoofed (which
   could normally be prevented in destinatin network's border router by
   egress filtering).

   One could argue that there will always exist operators that do not
   perform ingress filtering, and as the packets are not in general
   authenticated, the source address of an unauthenticated packet should
   not be trusted anyway.

   It is true that source address alone is not enough for
   authentication, but it still should be enough for some rudimentary
   form of identification.

3.1. The Source Address Spoofing Problem

   Sites and operators perform ingress filtering to keep nodes from
   spoofing their source address.  With Home Address option, anyone can
   work around these checks.  An example:

           host1 --- fwrtr1 - rtrISP - Internet - fwrtr2 ---host2

   Assume packets are originated from host1 with real IPv6 address
   3ffe:ffff:0::1/64.  Now fwrtr1 could perform ingress filtering from
   the direction of host1 as follows:

         allow ip from 3ffe:ffff:0:0::/64 to any
         deny ip from any to any

   And even if fwrtr1 fails to do that, rtrISP would probably perform
   ingress filtering as well, with 3ffe:ffff:0::/48.

   Now, malicious host1 would write packets as follows:

         src=host1 (or some spoofed address from 3ffe:ffff::/64)
         home address=3ffe:fff0::1 (or whatever)

   The packet would have been dropped if 3ffe:fff0::1 had been put in
   the source address itself.  Now, however, the packet passes through
   to host2, which MUST replace src=host1 with src=3ffe:fff0::1 based on
   the Home Address option.

   One could argue, that as the original source address is still in the
   header (whether spoofed or not), it is not usable for spoofing.
   Assuming the address could not be used, this would be only true to a
   certain extent.  Consider a user from some foreign dial-up service

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

   looking for vulnerabilities.  The account is possibly stolen, or the
   local authorities do not care even if the IP address was recorded in
   conjunction of the probing.  However, with Home Address option, you
   might be able to check whether the scanning with some other IP
   addresses, e.g. a privileged address from the destination network,
   would yield more interesting results.

3.2. The Double Spoofing Problem

   This is an extension of a reflector attack with Routing Header from
   section 2.2.  The main purpose is to perform a denial of service, or
   similar, attack, with an additional goal of blaming someone (or two
   someones) else for it.

   "Double Spoofing" is also possible if ingress filtering is only being
   done very far in the upstream.  Combined with Routing Header, this
   could be used to throw blame on others.  Assume the scenario:

           attacker1  --- rtr1 - rtrA -+- fwrtrBigISP
           reflector3 --- rtr3 - rtrC -'      |

   Now malicious attacker1 could write:

         rtheader=victim2, segments left=1
         home address=thepresident.whitehouse.com

   Even though victim2 noticed something strange was going on,
   everything would point at reflector3, even the incoming packet trail
   (note: there would still be a Routing Header with reflector3 in it,
   so one might be able to notice something was not right); reflector3
   would be too far away from attacker1 to pose a "threat" to attacker1.

   Instead of reflector3, one could of course also use some unsuspecting
   router on the other side of the globe.

   Now, let's see what the packets would actually look like at victim2's
   access logs.  Casully checked, it would be like:

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 12]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001


   A more detailed analysis (a packet dump from the wire with a tool
   that is able to parse home address) would indicate:

        source=reflector3 (or some spoofed address)
        home address=thepresident.whitehouse.com

   And complete data would be:

        source=reflector3 (or some spoofed address)
        routing header=reflector3
        home address=thepresident.whitehouse.com

   As noted, a casual observer would probably blame
   "thepresident.whitehouse.com" immediately.  As of this writing, there
   are no IPv6 packet filters or system-level loggers that would also
   log the original source address; thus causing a very high probabily
   for these false trails to go unnoticed.

3.3. The Protocol Reflection and Untraceability Problem

   ICMP Traceback [REVITRACE] suggest modifying iTrace so that it would
   also be possible to send ICMP Traceback messages to the source of the
   packets as well.  There are certain issues with this, as the source
   addresses are most probably spoofed, but here only the interaction
   with Home Address Option is considered.

   Here, with 'protocol reflector', we mean a more specific case of
   packet reflection, as introduced in [PAXSON]. (For example, src sends
   TCP SYN to protocol reflector, and reflector sends SYN+ACK to the
   victim).  Consider:

        src = attacker (gets by ingress filtering) or some other node
        dst = protocol reflector
        home address = victim

   The attacker could use Home Option to send these Reverse iTrace
   packets to itself or some node that it believes will not react to
   them.  Now, Reverse iTrace messages would go to the attacker.  Home
   Address Option in protocol reflection is especially harmful, as once
   reflected, the packet will look like:

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 13]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

        src = reflector
        dst = victim

   And every trace of the message is lost, including Reverse iTrace
   traceability.  However, the path from the attacker to protocol
   reflector would still be traceable with Forward iTrace; the issues
   with this are discussed under "The ICMP Traceback Avoidance Problem"

3.4. Some Requirements for Home Address Option Use

   Home Address option only makes sense when it's used by mobile nodes.
   The intent is to make the use of care-of addresses transparent, and
   it apparently should only be used when there exists, or is being
   formed, a binding between the communicating two nodes.

3.5. Solutions

3.5.1. Node-based Approach

   The most important thing is that Home Address option can be trusted
   to do the right thing in the end node (so that there would be no need
   to limit it in the network): Home Address must not be allowed to be
   used by completely untrusted and unauthenticated users.

   How this is achieved is beside the point; one way to get to this
   would be to revise the processing rules as follows:

   Home Address option MUST NOT be processed unless either of the two

     - the packet, including Home Address option, is authenticated, and
       the authentication is verified to be correct.

     - there exists a binding between the source address and Home
       Address in the destination node, and the binding was created

   One should note that the latter might require some additional changes
   in Mobile IPv6, as it is required that all Binding Updates MUST also
   include a Home Address option, thus creating a chicken-and-egg
   problem.  One should use authentication for these, though.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 14]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

3.5.2. Network-based Approach

   The discussion of Network-based Approach under Routing Header applies
   to Home Address as well; without state, and assuming there are mobile
   nodes in the network, it's impossible to create generic rules on
   which would be an allowed Home Address and which not.

   Without keeping state, filtering could be performed only if:

     - local mobile nodes never roam outside of the internal network
       performing filtering.

4. Conclusions

   It's very difficult to securely control, above all Mobile IPv6
   -related, use of Home Address and Routing Header in the network.
   Even if the packet filters would support rule-based matching of Home
   Address and Routing Header fields, it would be practically impossible
   to create any kind of general rules on what should be allowed and
   what not.

   Therefore, improving the node-based security should definitely be
   taken into consideration.  Additional, local policies can also be be
   made in very advanced packet filters, but the existence of this
   technology must not be relied on.

   To summarize, the author believes the following should be done:

     - Routing Header processing be disabled on all hosts except for
       Interface-local Routing Headers, or a new Routing Header type
       taken to use for MIPv6 purposes, and

     - Home Address option processing in the correspondent nodes revised
       in such a way that HA option will only be processed if it is
       provably secure or the binding that will use it was created

     - It should be considered whether the use of Routing Headers or
       Home Address Option makes traceback mechanisms too non-effective,
       and whether the mechanisms should be revised.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 15]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

5. Security Considerations

   This draft discusses security considerations; only some of the
   presented issues (mostly acknowledged problems) are presented here.

   The widespread use of Routing Header or Home Address Options may make
   traceback mechanisms at least partially non-effective.

   It was suggested that Routers should by default process Routing
   Header packets.  It is assumed that site internal routers should have
   this feature disabled (or controlled) by the administration.  If this
   is not done, the routers could be used to reflect packets and
   possibly avoid access controls as outlined in section 2.1.

   One should note that note that "Interface-local" property of Routing
   Headers is important to be, indeed interface-specific, not node-
   specific.  Consider a node with two interfaces, one public, and one
   completely private.  Even if a private service would be bound to the
   private interface only, one should not be able to use this private
   service from anywhere in the Internet.

   Even the interface-locality is not bulletproof, as some addresses
   assigned to the interface may be more private and public than others;
   at least this way the potential harm can be minimized.

   It is clear that interface-locality is a must in certain scenarios
   (e.g. a security gateway, or a secure node), but in a general case,
   it is debateable whether a significant loss of security would occur
   if the restriction would be lifted from normal hosts.

   The same zone requirement is also important (how this is observed is
   implementation dependent; the check doesn't need to be explicit in
   Routing Header processing) so one cannot reach e.g. link- or site-
   local addresses through Internet.

   More fine-grained control of the two addresses could be obtained via
   access lists if they support Routing Header processing.

6. Acknowledgements

   Discussions with Francis Dupont led to the writing of this draft.
   Valuable comments were received from Alexandru Petrescu.  Erik
   Nordmark provided extensive commentary and brought up the interaction
   with Reverse iTrace.

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 16]

Internet Draft   draft-savola-ipv6-rh-ha-security-01.txt   November 2001

7. References

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

   [FILTERING] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider
               Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013,
               Nov 2000.

   [PAXSON]    Paxson, V., "An Analysis of Using Reflectors for
               Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks", Jun 2001,

   [IPV6]      Deering, S., Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Version 6
               (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [MIPV6]     Johnson, D., Perkins, C., "Mobility Support in IPv6",
               draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-14.txt (work in progress).

   [BUSEC]     Arkko, J., "Issues in Protecting MIPv6 Binding Updates",
               draft-arkko-mipv6-bu-security-00.txt (work in progress).

   [ADDRSCOPE] Deering, S., et al. "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture",
               draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-02.txt (work in progress).

   [ITRACE]    Bellovin, S., Leech, M., Taylor, T., "ICMP Traceback
               Messages", draft-ietf-itrace-01.txt (work in progress).

   [REVITRACE] Barros, C., "A Proposal for ICMP Traceback Messages",

Author's Address

   Pekka Savola
   Espoo, Finland
   EMail: psavola@funet.fi

Savola                     [Expires May 2002]                  [Page 17]

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