Re: [secdir] Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 12 March 2010 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE4C3A691A; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.268
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dB1kViD9-IFR; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6A93A6901; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id o2CLD6hc006414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o2CLD6G2009102; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-05.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.109]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id o2CLD6PB009097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.120]) by XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.109]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:06 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>, Gabi Nakibly <gnakibly@yahoo.com>, v6ops <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:13:05 -0800
Thread-Topic: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
Thread-Index: AcooErw/GQXNMWvASRqGPthARajqOQACrWeAJoHrlyAAALQzQA==
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A649511DCE30@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <475898.88672.qm@web45510.mail.sp1.yahoo.com><39C363776A4E8C4A94 691D2BD9D1C9A106514554@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com><39C363776A4E8C4A94691D 2BD9D1C9A1065145AE@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com><39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9 D1C9A106555996@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com><212591.98462.qm@web45502.mail. sp1.yahoo.com><39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A106555B3D@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <DD1A73D9E9C89144A927C5080F70285A9366BCAF28@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD1A73D9E9C89144A927C5080F70285A9366BCAF28@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:13:07 -0000

Hi Dmitry,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitry Anipko [mailto:Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:54 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; Gabi Nakibly; v6ops
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I wanted to follow up on Fred's comment earlier in this thread:
> 
> >> OK. That will greatly simplify the checks needed for new
> automatic tunneling protocols that have a format other
> than ip-proto-41.
> 
> For the designers of new tunneling protocols, shall perhaps a recommendation on best practices be
> included into the draft or another document, that for the new tunnels a different protocol value /
> format should be used?

Are you are referring here to 'draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loop-01'?
If so, IMHO this document would be the natural location for such a
recommendation. 

> Examples of such protocol / formats could include using a different next-protocol value, potentially
> with some multiplexing schema if just using different next-protocol values is not scalable, or
> possibly some other format.

Yes, I think it would be very good to declare ip-proto-41 as
fully-developed and recommend that new tunneling protocols use
a different ip protocol number and/or TCP/UDP port number. This
would greatly reduce the concern for having to go back and
revisit tunneling implementations that perform src/dst checks
if a new tunneling protocol happens to emerge. Gabi - do you
have any thoughts on this?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Thank you,
> Dmitry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: Gabi Nakibly; v6ops
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
> 
> Gabi,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gabi Nakibly [mailto:gnakibly@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:07 PM
> > To: Templin, Fred L; v6ops
> > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
> >
> > Correct. All the attacks rely on the fact that the ISATAP router
> encapsulates/decapsulates a packet
> > the 6to4 relay decapsulates/encapsulates, respectively. So the two
> tunnels must have the same
> > encapsulation type.
> 
> OK. That will greatly simplify the checks needed for new
> automatic tunneling protocols that have a format other
> than ip-proto-41.
> 
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > > To: Gabi Nakibly <gnakibly@yahoo.com>om>; v6ops <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> > > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 7:23:03 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Routing loop attacks using IPv6 tunnels
> > >
> > > Gabi,
> > >
> > > Correct me if I am wrong, but if there were a new version
> > > of ISATAP that did not use ip-proto-41 encapsulation but
> > > instead used a different kind of encapsulation, then it
> > > need not concern itself with routing loop interactions
> > > with 6to4 relays since 6to4 relays only know about
> > > ip-proto-41. Does that match your understanding?
> > >
> > > Thanks - Fred
> > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------