- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: Examining IPv6 Performance
by Mirjam Kuehne 26 Nov '15

26 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Geoff Huston's presentation during the IPv6 WG at RIPE 71, read it in more detail on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/examining-ipv6-performance Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

ripemtg-nat64 network at RIPE71: complain here ;)
by Jen Linkova 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

Hi guys, As you might have noticed there is a NAT64 SSID. This thread is for complains about that network. Please use ripemtg-nat64 SSID. Please let us know if smth goes wrong. if you have network issues while using that SSID and switching to dual-stack one fixes the problem - please reply to this thread (indeed you can create a new one, I was just thinking that keeping everything in one thread might make our life easier but I might be wrong...). -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

15 29

New on RIPE Labs: Lost Stars: Why Operators Switch off IPv6
by Mirjam Kuehne 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, One of the measurements that we have been running for a long time is IPv6 RIPEness, where we measure the IPv6 activity of the RIPE NCC members. We award members with stars if they (for example) announce their IPv6 allocation in the global routing table. We discovered that 460 RIPE NCC members had recently stopped announcing their IPv6 prefix and asked them why. Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/lost-stars-why-operators-sw… Nathalie Trenaman will present this in the IPv6 working group at RIPE 71. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6-only network during RIPE 71
by Ondřej Caletka 10 Nov '15

10 Nov '15

Dear WG, as the RIPE 71 approaches, I would like to revive discussion about the IPv6-only network during meeting, that has been kindly provided since RIPE 67. I think the technology is mature enough to be provided as a regular RIPE NCC service during the meeting - that means regular network name and, most important, a password that is propagated in the same way the normal Wi-Fi network password is. This is especially important for the one third of newcomers that have had a big troubles learning the password of the IPV6ONLYEXP network. After RIPE 70, I proposed a "drastic" approach [1], renaming the dual-stack meeting network to -legacy and promote the NAT64 network as the default. This is the same way they do it on FOSDEM since 2014 [2]. But maybe we could try a slow start first, keeping the dual-stacked network the default and offering the NAT64 network with some suffix like -v6only. Any ideas? -- Ondřej Caletka CESNET [1]: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/2015-May/002632.html [2]: https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/news/2015-01-31-ipv6-only-again/

22 38

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Atlas and NAT64 (Was: IPv6-only network during RIPE 71)
by Jen Linkova 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >> RIPE Atlas probe is a host. It should not care much if it's traffic is >> going via NAT64 box or not. > > Actually detecting NAT64 and flagging as such, and being able to run > tests on a group of NAT64-hidden probes might add value... I think there is a dirty hack to do it now: run a measurements from v6-enabled probes to v4-only host, check the results for the destination address they were using. But I agree, it would be nice to get a list of probes behind NAT64 w/o wasting time and credits ;) -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

2 1

Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 50, Issue 3
by Timothy Roy 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

I agree with all on this one, It is time to rock and roll with IPV6 and as was stated earlier, if someone does not like they can choose the other one. I think it will be a boost for IPV6 (if all goes well). -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: 03 November 2015 15:00 To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 50, Issue 3 Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at ipv6-wg-owner(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: IPv6-only network during RIPE 71 (Sander Steffann) 2. Re: IPv6-only network during RIPE 71 (Sander Steffann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:54:33 +0100 From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> To: Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> Cc: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh(a)marcoh.net>, "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6-only network during RIPE 71 Message-ID: <72AAB357-AD25-4B1C-8BAC-4CC6F70836AE(a)steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Shane, Op 3 nov. 2015, om 03:21 heeft Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> het volgende geschreven: > tl;dr Don't so cautious. Removing the "experimental" tag from IPv6 won't > ruin the RIPE meeting. +1 Well said :) Sander ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:58:07 +0100 From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> To: Philip Homburg <pch-ripeml(a)u-1.phicoh.com> Cc: "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6-only network during RIPE 71 Message-ID: <C18918DD-63AC-4966-92C1-9CF78822E0FD(a)steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > (Can't wait for a request for Atlas to support NAT64, that's going to > be > interesting) Request! Cheers, Sander PS (in Dutch): iets met slapende honden wakker maken ;) End of ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 50, Issue 3 **************************************

1 0

: IGF Best Practice Forum document review “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, As mentioned in my email on 24 August, over the past few months we have been working on a project to document some high-level best practices on IPv6 adoption, titled “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption.” This work is part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) inter-sessional efforts to create more tangible outcomes for the IGF by collecting and documenting best practices on a variety of topics. With the IGF 2015 taking place next week from 10-13 November, this project is drawing to a close and the final draft document is now published and open for review. The document is available at: http://review.intgovforum.org/?p=3987 You can use this same website to submit any comments. Comments will close on 14 November 2015, after which a final version of the document that incorporates any comments received will be released and made available for distribution. On day two of the IGF (11 November) from 09:00-10:30 local time (UTC-3) there will also be a session in which the main contributors will discuss the document and its main conclusions on what they believe are enabling factors that contribute to IPv6 adoption. Just like all sessions at the IGF, remote participation for this session will be available via http://www.intgovforum.org. Please follow the instructions that will be posted on that website. Finally I would like to thank all the RIPE community members that have contributed to this project, by responding to our survey or by making direct contributions on the mailing list or conference calls. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC - External Relations

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 on the March
by Mirjam Kuehne 25 Sep '15

25 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, In this new RIPE Labs article Tony Smith from APNIC is looking at the increase in IPv6 deployment now ARIN has depleted their free pool of IPv4 addresses: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-on-the-march Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [ipv6-wg-chair] ipv6 deployment startup
by Jen Linkova 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

Hi Nadim, On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Nadim Houeiss <nadim(a)win-dsl.com> wrote: > looking to start the deployment of ipv6 only network for a new part in my > network , i need to have info about wish solution will be the best to be > used for NAT64 techniques for new ipv6 only end users will be able to reach > ipv4 different services and web servers on the web. As far as I know most network vendors (Cisco, Juniper etc) support NAT64 on their equipment. However don't forget that you'd need DNS64 as well, so I'd suggest to check if the DNS solution you are using currently supports DNS64. >From my experience the main issue is not choosing a vendor for NAT64 but dealing with broken applications: - applications which assume than "no IPv4 address" means "no Internet connectivity" and not even trying to establish any connections if the device does not receive Ipv4 address; - applications which are using IPv4 literals; - applications which ask for "A" DNS RR only, so DNS64 does not help etc. > looking forward for your reply, BTW I'm removing ipv-wg-chairs@ (as it is just an alias which is used to reach RIPE IPv6 Working group chairs) and adding RIPE IPv6 mailing list. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

2 1

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

[training] IP Address Space Course this November in Bucharest
by Training Services 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, We are happy to announce that a RIPE NCC training course will take place on the Sunday before the RIPE 71 Meeting in Bucharest this November. This course will focus on how to obtain and manage IP address space. The course is free of charge and is open to anyone interested. The course will cover the most frequently asked questions that the RIPE NCC receives about IP address space. ----------------- Course details ---------------- IPv6 Address Space Basics: How to Obtain and Manage Your IP Addresses Sunday, 15 November 2015, 10-16:00 JW Marriott Bucharest Grand Hotel ---------------- Course goals ---------------- By the end of this course, you will be able to: - Manage your IPv4 and IPv6 addresses according to current RIPE Policies - Understand how to obtain IPv4 addresses through transfers - Protect your address space from hijacking ---------------------------------------- Who will benefit from this course? ----------------------------------------- Anyone interested in the policies and procedures around address space in the RIPE NCC service region will find this course useful. No prior knowledge of the topic is necessary. ------------------------- Course outline: ------------------------- - Becoming a RIPE NCC member (why and how) - Obtaining IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) - IP address space transfers, mergers and acquisitions - IPv6 basics - Address space hijacking - Resource Certification (RPKI) ---------------------------- Additional information ---------------------------- - Free of charge - Coffee and lunch will be provided - Delivered by the RIPE NCC’s Training Services and Registration Services departments ----------------------------------------- Registration for RIPE NCC members ----------------------------------------- If you are a RIPE NCC member and interested in attending this course, please visit our website on the following page to register: <https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/register/courseCode/LIR20150032> ------------------------------------ Registration for non-members ------------------------------------- If you are not (yet) a member, please fill out the following information and send this to <training(a)ripe.net>: - Email: - Course name: - Full name : - Vegetarian: yes/no Be quick - we only have 45 seats available on a first come, first served basis! If there is enough interest, we will continue to offer courses on different topics of interest alongside future RIPE Meetings. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Why operators filter IPv6 packets with extension headers?
by Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

Fernando et al., A couple of quick comments: - this reminds me of taylor-v6ops-fragdrop (which you cite at the end), did you approach any of this old I-D authors? - not sure whether the security implications should be re-stated again in this document, let's rather split the security & operational issues into two documents - in the introduction, 'widespread implementation limitations' is probably too strong (and I agree that my employer products could do better) - in the introduction, "intentionally dropped" ? I am afraid that some drop are not intentional - I would shorten a lot the section 3 (security implications) and simply put a lot of references to existing good documents of yours and others - I like section 4 (operational implications) but it does not match the title, it is more about why transit operators have to look at layer-4 - section 4 approaches the goal described in the abstract but actually only provide clues why operators intentionally (or non intentionally) drops packets with EH. For example, being unable to do ECMP is of course an operational impact but why would it be the cause of EH drop? - section 4.1 (iACL), beyond the permit/deny, some operators also rate limit some traffic such pings - section 4.1, perhaps worth mentioning that infrastructure ACL are more in the white list approach, i.e., what is not BGP/ICMP (in your example) to some prefixes is dropped, so, if someone uses EH to obscure the traffic, this EH traffic matching the destination prefix is dropped anyway by the ACL (so iACL works) but traffic destined to other destination is not impacted. Or did I got something wrong? - section 4.2 (route processor protection) is a little unclear - the processing of HbH would kill the Internet of course (at least with most routers), should HbH be separately called? - section 4.3 (DDoS mitigation), I am unsure about FlowSPec but can it also specify 'any traffic with EH' ? This would do the trick probably for dropping or diverting the DoS packets? - missing issue is lack of granular EH control by some routers, for example if an operator wants to block its subscribers RH-0 but can only drop RH (because RH type cannot be specified), then all RH are dropped including MIPv6 - section 5 (potential attack vector) appears to be focus on fragment drop by the public Internet. While it can probably work, the issues are twofold: 1) bad host implementations not doing enough tests before accepting a ICMP packet-too-big 2) public Internet dropping valid fragments in transit In both cases, we (the industry, vendors + operators) need to fix those two issues. May I STRONGLY suggest to remove all security issues (other docs are describing this) and focus only on the operational issues (esp in V6OPS) ? And skip any discussion on the rationale why packets with EH are dropped? Hope this helps to refine a potentially useful I-D. -éric On 1/09/15 03:17, "v6ops on behalf of Fernando Gont" <v6ops-bounces(a)ietf.org on behalf of fernando(a)gont.com.ar> wrote: >Folks, > >The topic of operators dropping IPv6 packets containing extension >headers has been raised quite a few times on this list and elsewhere. > >A month ago or so we published a document trying to summarize the >reasons for which operators filter IPv6 packets containing extension >headers. The document is available at: ><https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt> > >We're currently working on a revision of this document, and would like >to hear feedback from the working group regarding our document. e.g., > >* Did we get anything wrong? >* Is there anything missing? > >Or, if you like the document and agree with its content, that's also >interesting feedback to have. > >Thanks! > >Best regards, >-- >Fernando Gont >e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)si6networks.com >PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops(a)ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

4 3

Why operators filter IPv6 packets with extension headers?
by Fernando Gont 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

Folks, The topic of operators dropping IPv6 packets containing extension headers has been raised quite a few times on a number of mailing-lists and forums. A month ago or so we published a document trying to summarize the reasons for which operators filter IPv6 packets containing extension headers. The document is available at: <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt> We're currently working on a revision of this document, and would like to hear feedback from the ops community regarding our document. e.g., * Did we get anything wrong? * Is there anything missing? Or, if you like the document and agree with its content, that's also interesting feedback to have. P.S.: If possible, please CC <v6ops(a)ietf.org> and <draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops(a)tools.ietf.org> when sending feedback. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses October-December 2015
by Training Services 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

Dear colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Amsterdam, Athens, Odessa, Naples, Cardiff, Barcelona, Oslo, Bucharest, Budapest, Istanbul, Zagreb, Doha, Berlin. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - RIPE Database Training Course - Basic IPv6 Training Course - 2 days Advanced IPv6 Training Course - Routing Security Training Course - DNSSEC Training Course For more information visit: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

IGF Seeking Input: “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption”
by Marco Hogewoning 24 Aug '15

24 Aug '15

Dear colleagues, As part of this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF), an IPv6 Best Practice Forum will discuss successful approaches that encourage IPv6 adoption. To get the most out of this effort, we would like to invite you to contribute your experiences to the forum. IGF Best Practice Forums rely on input from stakeholders across the Internet community and are open to anyone who would like to contribute. The RIPE NCC and other RIRs are participating in this discussion and we hope that RIPE community members will also take part. The goal of the forum is to create a high-level document that describes successful efforts to stimulate IPv6 adoption in both the public and private sectors. An example might be the creation of a task force that coordinated to remove barriers to IPv6 adoption. The group has already created a survey aimed at IPv6 task forces, which is available here: https://goo.gl/kQhmz We would like to further invite you to share any specific examples where commercial needs were addressed, such as creating a business case to secure management support for IPv6. A dedicated public mailing list has been developed for this project, which is available here: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org More information on the IGF IPv6 Best Practice Forum can be found here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/78-best-pra… We invite you to contribute using the links above. If you have any questions about this effort or the IGF in general, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Kind regards Marco Hogewoning External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Promote the use of IRC
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Hi all, Yesterday, I've started a discussion in the member list about promoting the use of IRC instead of Mail List for some kind of discussions, chit chat, etc. Not much members answered, but all who did said yes. The goal is to have, at least, one channel per mail list, but not limited to only that. For this list, an #ipv6 channel will be created and administrated by the WG Chairs. We want to use the actual RIPE IRC Server plus Network Services and some more irc servers linked to the Ripe one. What do you think? Regards, --Daniel

10 15

New IPv6 Tutorials Available Online
by Pedro Vaz 27 Jul '15

27 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that two new IPv6 videos are now available as part of our growing collection of E-Learning Tutorials. You can find these here: Neighbor Discovery Protocol: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/ipv6/ipv6-fundame… 464XLAT: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/ipv6/transition-m… These videos also form part of the "Introduction to IPv6" online course that is available through the RIPE NCC Academy. If you want to join this course, you can register here: academy.ripe.net. The RIPE NCC Academy and RIPE NCC E-Learning Tutorials are a free service available to everyone. We plan to announce even more exciting E-Learning news in the coming months, so stay tuned! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact us at<e-learning(a)ripe.net>. Happy learning! Kind regards Pedro Vaz Trainer/Graphics Animator RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 martian filter-set
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

Hello, I'm not sure if people are using the fltr-martian-v6 filter set maintained by Job Snijders: filter-set: fltr-martian-v6 descr: Current IPv6 martians mp-filter: { 0000::/8^+, # loopback, unspecified, v4-mapped 0200::/7^+, # Reserved by IETF [RFC4048] 2001::/32^-, # Teredo prefix [RFC4380] 2001:db8::/32^+, # NON-ROUTABLE range to be used for documentation purpose [RFC3849] 2002::/16^-, # 6to4 prefix [RFC3068] 3ffe::/16^+, # used for the 6bone but was returned [RFC5156] 5f00::/8^+, # used for the 6bone but was returned [RFC5156] fc00::/7^+, # Unique Local Unicast [RFC4193] fe80::/10^+, # Link Local Unicast [RFC4291] fec0::/10^+, # Reserved by IETF [RFC3879] ff00::/8^+ # Multicast [RFC4291] } I'm trying to figure out why prefixes like 0200::/7 or 0400::/6 are not included in this list Any ideas? cheers, Yannis

2 2

RIPE71 IPv6 WG: call for presentations
by Jen Linkova 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Dear IPv6 Enthusiasts, RIPE71 is just 4 months away and it's time to start thinking about IPv6 WG session agenda! If you would like to present, or just have any suggestions on what we should discuss) - please email ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net. If you would like to present, we need the following information: - a tentative title of your talk; - short summary - how much time you need (I'd recommend allowing 5 mins for questions). Thank you! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of IPv6 WG chairs.

1 0

Fwd: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

FYI To the extent that it's possible, please discuss the I-D on the IETF v6ops mailing-list. But feel free to discuss it here anyway (I'll monitor the list for comments). Thanks! Best regards, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:35:11 -0300 From: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> To: v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org <v6ops(a)ietf.org> CC: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops(a)tools.ietf.org Folks, A group of us published a new I-D trying to summarize the operational and security implications. It is meant to summarize the reasons for which operators may intentionally drop IPv6 packets containing IPv6 extension headers. The I-D is available at: <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops…> As far as this I-D is concerned, think of us co-authors as the messengers. The I-D doesn't argue itself whether you should (or should not) drop packets with EHs, but simply discusses the challenge they represent in some scenarios. Comments will be more than welcome. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:29:21 -0700 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie>, Shucheng LIU (Will) <liushucheng(a)huawei.com>, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Warren Kumari <warren(a)kumari.net>, Will Liu (Shucheng) <liushucheng(a)huawei.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie>, Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Warren Kumari <warren(a)kumari.net> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops Revision: 00 Title: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers Document date: 2015-07-01 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 13 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops… Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-00 Abstract: This document summarizes the security and operational implications of IPv6 extension headers, and attempts to analyze reasons why packets with IPv6 extension headers may be dropped in the public Internet. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
by Enno Rey 26 Jun '15

26 Jun '15

Hi, hope everybody had a great #RIPE70 meeting. We did! Many thanks to the organizers and chairs! With regard to the strong position on ext hdrs that I expressed in the session yesterday pls allow to add some material/sources: - this is a paper laying out how we could circumvent some major (both commercial and FOSS) IDPS solutions in their at the time of testing latest versions, by various combinations of extension headers and fragmentation: https://www.ernw.de/download/eu-14-Atlasis-Rey-Schaefer-briefings-Evasion-o…. - here's some thoughts and preliminary results of tests performed to circumvent stateless ACLs: http://www.insinuator.net/2015/01/evasion-of-cisco-acls-by-abusing-ipv6-dis…. http://www.insinuator.net/2015/01/the-persistent-problem-of-state-in-ipv6-s…. We have a (somewhat) ongoing research project looking more closely on the interaction of ACLs and extension headers. For the moment I can only state that it's not just Cisco who are "affected". More results will be available in some months. If the chairs consider this appropriate we will happily give a presentation on this stuff in Bucharest or at another occasion. We could even bring some devices to Bucharest to do some practical testing and demos "in some side room" during #RIPE71, for those interested. We can even do the latter without any official part in a session, if there's interest. As for the topic itself I'd like to summarize our position as follows: - it has not happened in the past 17 yrs (since publication of RFC2460) that compelling, Internet-scale use cases of extension headers have been brought up. - we're hence quite sceptical as for the "we might see cool use cases in 15-20 yrs" position someone expressed at the mic. - from a security perspective they turn out to be a nightmare for (a number of) current security architectures and controls. it is hence understandable (and we actually advise to do so) that they are blocked at the _border_ of networks that have not yet managed to identify a compelling use case. - looking at the "liberty" RFC2460 provides as for ext_hdrs (wrt to their number, order, options, fragmentable vs. unfragmentable part etc.) we do not expect that type of security issues to disappear soon (the main reason why we did not continue the IDPS research was that the involved student eventually delivered this thesis. one can probably find much more issues provided time & resources). Adding more parsing cycles & intelligence (read: silicon) is not an option, at least not for sth that doesn't have a use case. - the results of this (blocking) approach have been observed and documented by Jen & Fernando and others (Tim Chown). - now that "this vicious circle" has gained sufficient ground it will be even less incentivized to develop a compelling use case. which is why we do not expect to see one in the future. === Everybody have a great weekend and for those still in AMS: have a safe trip home! Best Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================

16 43

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the dates for the RIPE NCC Webinars for the coming quarter. These interactive on-line learning sessions take about one hour, and give you the opportunity to learn and interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. In the next 3 months you can participate in the following Webinars: - Advanced RIPE Atlas Usage (NEW!) - Introduction to the RIPE Database - RIPE Database - Advanced Topics - IPv6 in the RIPE Database - IPv6 Addressing Plan - Webinar for New LIRs - Resource Certification (RPKI) Register now at https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have any questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

[news] Finnish IPv6 Launch Event on 8 June in Helsinki, Finland
by Marco Hogewoning 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, Finnish IPv6 Launch Event on 8 June in Helsinki, Finland On Tuesday 8 June, Viestintävirasto, the Finnish telecoms regulator, hosted a seminar on the launch of IPv6 in Finland across a broad spectrum of sectors. Emile Aben and I participated in this meeting on behalf of the RIPE NCC. This half-day meeting was the pinnacle of a project that started about two years ago with a renewal of the work programme of the national IPv6 task force. This renewal led to efforts to coordinate the deployment of IPv6, with the seminar date set as a milestone by which to achieve nationwide support for IPv6. The project found support from all major access providers as well as hosting companies and content providers including the national broadcaster, YLE, and MTV. We are pleased to see this strategy has paid off: the regulator estimates that approximately five million Finnish Internet connections are IPv6 enabled to date. Real-time measurements by APNIC also showed a rapid increase of IPv6 users over the preceding week: the percentage of end users observed using IPv6 quickly rose from almost nothing to 4.7%. DNA achieved the most spectacular deployment: the percentage of their customers using IPv6 skyrocketed to 16% and is still increasing. During the seminar, various operators reported on their experiences during the deployment. They also looked forward to resolving any remaining issues and using the knowledge gained to further advance IPv6 adoption throughout the country. More information about the initiative can be found at http://ipv6nyt.fi. For detailed statistics on the IPv6 deployment, see: http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/FI?c=FI&x=1&p=0&r=1&w= Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices
by Mark ZZZ Smith 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

From: Ca By <cb.list6(a)gmail.com> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke(a)cisco.com> Cc: "v6ops(a)ietf.org" <v6ops(a)ietf.org>; "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2015, 8:32 Subject: Re: [v6ops] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices On Monday, June 15, 2015, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke(a)cisco.com> wrote: Enno, As you probably know, Cisco handles PSIRT issues with care, so, I have no clue on this specific advisory. My own (educated) guess is that the packet causing a LC reload is fully RFC 2460 compliant but unusual, so, probably (a guess again) a combination of extension headers triggering a bug. In this specific case, I would not blame IPv6 or RFC 2460 but rather my own company (even if the affected versions were quite old as new IOS-XR versions appear to be immune to this bug). And I appreciate the humor in your rhetorical question about which FW could protect a CRS... Air gap probably :-) More generally, regarding the 'parsing of the header' and performance, my understanding (and I am NOT a HW engineer) is that there are multiple ways to parse the header chain: - purely software in low-end devices, should have a marginal performance impact - specific ASIC in middle-end devices (read high end enterprise), probably some limitations and heavy performance impact (but again within one organization, so, easier to fix the root cause) - a lot of specialized network processors in high-end devices (SP gears), which is a similar case as the 'low-end device', performance impact but marginal as parsing the chain of headers is not that hard after all _when_ coded correctly As the extension headers are specific to IPv6, this is an area when we will all learn (and have learned already) a lot of things... I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Of course, destination AS/host SHOULD only accept useful, known and legit ext headers; but, why would an ISP filter on ext headers if they do not harm their own infra or a customer infra? Do you envision an Internet where only TCP/443 and UDP/43 would be accepted? Last point, the Internet will have to use IPv6 for 10 or 20 years at least. If the IETF/ISP block all new _options_ in _existing_ extension headers, then we will be stuck in 1997 for network innovation. While I do not like taking security risks, I even fear more the lack of innovation. I keep hearing this and it is very bizarre to hear With regards to 1997, believing that there will be innovation in the narrow waist of hour glass (network layer), that is very 1997. The network layer is stable and boring.... Hence it being narrow. Innovation is welcome everywhere except network in the e2e model / Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. / Consider what the network and host situation was in 1997 (wired network access, desktops outselling laptops, dialup Internet for residential, corporates in total probably being the largest spenders on Internet access) to today and the near future (wireless networks, smartphones/tablets being the dominant Internet access device in some markets - and they're multi-homed, M2M/IoT considered to be place where the greatest expansion of Internet connected devices is going to occur in the near future.) / IPv6 has had relatively little adoption, and it is only starting to increase quite rapidly in the last few years and that is mainly because of mobile networks. There hasn't and still doesn't seem to be much thinking about how IPv6's differences from IPv4's can be taken advantage of yet - an "IPv4 first" or an "IPv4 == IPv6" mindset seems to be still very common (I think the network virtualisation space is where this is might be most prominent - I think most of the technologies they're inventing require fork lift network upgrades, so the costs of deploying IPv6 at the same time become a lot less significant. So if there is a "cheap" opportunity to deploy IPv6, and IPv6 is going to be the long term network layer 3, why not optimise for it now? That was the thinking behind my "Enhancing Virtual Network Encapsulation with IPv6" draft) / We don't want to disable innovation opportunities that IPv6 may provide before people have arrived at an "IPv6 first" or "IPv4 != IPv6" mindset. Let's talk on Thursday at Silvia's IPv6 Conference in Zurich ;-) -éric On 11/06/15 11:58, "Enno Rey" <erey(a)ernw.de> wrote: > >the problem here is the definition of "normal IP packet" as of RFC2460. >To illustrate this I just quote from today's Cisco advisory (Cisco IOS XR >Software Crafted IPv6 Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability) on packets >potentially crashing CRS-3 line cards: > >"The vulnerability is due to incorrect processing of an IPv6 packet >carrying IPv6 extension headers that are valid but unlikely to be seen >during normal operation. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by >sending such an IPv6 packet to an affected device that is configured to >process IPv6 traffic. An exploit could allow the attacker to cause a >reload of the line card, resulting in a DoS condition." > >two question come to mind here: > >- is a "valid but unlikely" extension header chain "normal"? >- what ("combination of FW & IPS or whatever") would you put in front of >a CRS? > >my (sad) expectation is that we'll see much more of these (types of) >issues in the future. given the current level of freedom that the RFC2460 >leaves (see also discussion/picture in >http://www.insinuator.net/2015/06/is-ipv6-more-secure-than-ipv4-or-less/) >"properly parsing an IPv6 packet, let alone in wire speed" seems a pretty >much unsolvable task to me. > >That said I still fail to see any useful extension header besides AH&ESP >(not even FH) to be transported in the Internet. > >best > >Enno > > > > > > > > If your firewall cannot implement this policy, then >> it is time to change or to use a combination of FW & IPS or whatever. >> >> - network person: as I will live with IPv6 for the rest of my life, >>then I >> want a way to extend it and I need any packet to travel to my source to >>my >> destination. Any IPv6 packet should be able to traverse the >> Internet/private network as long as its layer-3 header is valid >> (filtering/dropping can be done exceptionally for good operational >> reason). Did we remember the IPv4 teardrop attack? It is blocked by >> default by most routers for years ;-) >> >> Bugs will plague us for ever... And make our life more complex than the >> above description of course ;-) >> >> -??ric >> >> On 17/05/15 20:43, "Silvia Hagen" <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch> wrote: >> >> >Hi >> > >> >I keep stumbling about that "recommendational wording" in RFC 2460 >> >everytime I teach it. >> > >> >Couldn't we update RFC2460 and make this list a strict order? >> > >> >I would want my firewall to notify me if the EHs in a packet do not >> >follow the list. >> >And limiting the number of possible EHs per packet might be a good >>idea. >> > >> >Silvia >> > >> >-----Urspr??ngliche Nachricht----- >> >Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Benedikt >> >Stockebrand >> >Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2015 18:39 >> >An: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net >> >Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Extension Headers / Impact on Security Devices >> > >> >Hi Enno and list, >> > >> >Enno Rey <erey(a)ernw.de> writes: >> > >> >> hope everybody had a great #RIPE70 meeting. We did! >> >> Many thanks to the organizers and chairs! >> > >> >and thanks to the actual speakers as well the speakers we had to turn >> >down due to time constraints, too:-) >> > >> >> If the chairs consider this appropriate we will happily give a >> >> presentation on this stuff in Bucharest or at another occasion. >> > >> >Sounds good to me! >> > >> >> - looking at the "liberty" RFC2460 provides as for ext_hdrs (wrt to >> >> their number, order[...] >> > >> >Actually, as far as I'm concerned that's the real core of the problem. >> >Or more specifically, the first two lines of RFC 2460, section 4.1: >> > >> > When more than one extension header is used in the same packet, it >>is >> > recommended that those headers appear in the following order: >> > >> >followed on the next page by >> > >> > Each extension header should occur at most once, except for the >> > Destination Options header which should occur at most twice (once >> > before a Routing header and once before the upper-layer header). >> > >> >Note in particular that these are not even RFC 2119 "SHOULD" or >> >"RECOMMENDED" and such. >> > >> >The impact here is actually at least twofold: >> > >> >- It is impossible to implement this as a simple pipeline architecture >> > in hardware; at least for cases deviating from the "recommendations" >> > above this effectively becomes either excessively complex to >>implement >> > in hardware or an invitation to DoS when implemented in software on >>an >> > otherwise hardware router. >> > >> >- As I understand it, at least some of the issues you have found are >> > effectively based on violating the second paragraph quoted, making it >> > impossible to come up with a lower bound on how long the header chain >> > can actually get and therefore leading to the fragmentation related >> > attacks and similar you have discovered. >> > >> >The original idea was that the extension headers are processed strictly >> >in the order they occur, so one question to ask is if there is any >>valid >> >reason to violate these "recommendations" for other than malicious >> >purposes. >> > >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> > Benedikt >> > >> >-- >> >Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT >>Training+Consulting >> >Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ >> > >> > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects >> > >> >BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: >>http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ >> > >> > >> > >-- >Enno Rey > >ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de >Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 > >Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 >Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey > >======================================================= >Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de >Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator >======================================================= > >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops(a)ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

1 0

Looking for info on IGP choices in production dual-stack networks
by Victor Kuarsingh 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

RIPE IPv6 Folks: Philip Matthews and I are co-authors on an active draft within the IETF related to IPv6 routing design choices. To ensure we are gathering sufficient data we are looking for an expanded set of input from operator forums as well (vs. just the v6ops IETF list). The draft is found here -(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices). We are looking for information on the IGP combinations people are running in their dual-stack networks. We are gathering this information so we can document in our draft which IGP choices are known to work well (i.e., people actually run this combination in production networks without issues). The draft will not name names, but just discuss things in aggregate: for example, "there are 3 large and 2 small production networks that run OSPF for IPv4 and IS-IS for IPv6, thus that combination is judged to work well". If you have a production dual-stack network, then we would like to know which IGP you use to route IPv4 and which you use to route IPv6. We would also like to know roughly how many routers are running this combination. Feel free to share any successes or concerns with the combination as well. We are looking particularly at combinations of the following IGPs: IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, EIGRP. If you run something else (RIP?) then we would also like to hear about this, though we will likely document these differently. [We suspect you run RIP/RIPng only at the edge for special situations, but feel free to correct us]. And if you have one of those modern networks that carries dual-stack customer traffic in a L3VPN or similar and thus don’t need a dual-stacked core, then please email us and brag ... If you are on multiple lists at RIPE, NANOG or the IETF, we apologize for any redundant emails you may get (we are just attempting to reach the widest audience possible). Philip Matthews Victor Kuarsingh

1 0