Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-05

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    6man mailing list <ipv6@ietf.org>,
    6man chair <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery'
  (draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary:

This document analyzes the security implications of using IPv6 Extension
Headers with Neighbor Discovery (ND) messages. It updates RFC 4861 such
that use of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header is forbidden in all Neighbor
Discovery messages, thus allowing for simple and effective
counter-measures for Neighbor Discovery attacks. Finally, it discusses
the security implications of using IPv6 fragmentation with SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND), and formally updates RFC 3971 to provide
advice regarding how the aforementioned security implications can be
prevented.

Working Group Summary:

There is working support for this document. It has been discussed on the
mailing list and in face to face 6man sessions. The chairs did a review
that improved the quality of the document.

Document Quality:

No known implementations.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bob Hinden, Document Shepherd
Brian Haberman, Internet AD 

RFC Editor Note

OLD
splitting the necessary information into multiple RA messages

NEW
splitting the necessary information into multiple Router Advertisement (RA)
messages

OLD
options such as the CGA option

NEW
options such as the Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) option

OLD
that would result in fragmented CPA messages.

NEW
that would result in fragmented Certification Path Advertisement (CPA) messages.

RFC Editor Note