Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 07 June 2017 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA6012EBF7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 05:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xHHoG9cyUW-1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 05:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06EF912EBE3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 05:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.185] (unknown [196.105.209.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4555C83838; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:33:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAO42Z2ziUZnK+n2f9N_Xvb5TZBppApXgNSmDsRLxaT1_taLvFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <4a6969ba-4cd3-ba30-2f3b-9ec4cc3fcf60@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:03:18 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2ziUZnK+n2f9N_Xvb5TZBppApXgNSmDsRLxaT1_taLvFw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/31EOzXfIFG-y0at1Q5eFPVXkzAM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:33:23 -0000

On 06/07/2017 04:23 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> is this draft exactly:
>>>>
>>>>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>>>>    128 [BCP198].  Interface Identifiers should be 64 bit long except
>>>>    when the addresses are manually configured, or by exceptions defined
>>>>    in standards track documents.  For example, [RFC6164] standardises
>>>>    127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.  The rationale
>>>>    for using 64 bit Interface Identifiers can be found in [RFC7421]
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Yes. Put those words in 4291bis and I will be very happy. Oh ;-).
>>
> 
> 
> "Interface Identifiers should be 64 bit long except when the addresses
> are manually configured, or by exceptions defined in standards track
> documents."
> 
> That doesn't mention that security and privacy properties of addresses
> will be compromised if the manually configured addresses are from a
> small prefix.
> 
> Security and privacy properties of addresses are independent of the
> method used to configure them. Addresses configured via SLAAC, DHCPv6
> or manual configuration from within a small prefix/address range all
> lose privacy and security properties and value.

Measurements indicate that when folks do manual configuration, they do
"low-byte" addresses -- i.e., no matter the prefix length, they just set
the IID to all zeroes except for the last byte or so. -- having "easy to
remember" addresses seems to be the goal in that case.

In that sense, I'd say that the security/privacy properties are closely
tied to *both* the prefix length *and* the mechanism employed to
configure the address. -- for instance, a DHCPv6 server that leases
addresses from a small pool or with a specific pattern still results in
the same properties, even if the subnet is a /64.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492