IPv6 Working Group S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track July 6, 2007
Expires: January 7, 2008
The case against Hop-by-Hop options
draft-krishnan-ipv6-hopbyhop-01
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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-
Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
Abstract
The Hop-by-Hop option header is a type of IPv6 extension header that
has been defined in the IPv6 protocol specification. The contents of
this header need to be processed by every node along the path of an
IPv6 datagram.This draft highlights the characteristics of this
extension header which make it prone to Denial of Service attacks and
proposes solutions to minimize such attacks.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Details of the attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Effects of the attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Rate limiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Impact on deployed IPv6 nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
1. Introduction
The IPv6 base specification [RFC2460] defines the hop-by-hop
extension header. This extension header carries the options which
need to be processed by every node along the path of the datagram.
Certain characteristics of the specification make it especially
vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks. The characteristics are:
o All the ipv6 nodes on the path need to process the options in this
header
o The option TLVs in the hop-by-hop options header need to be
processed in order
o A sub range of option types in this header will not cause any
errors even if the node does not recognize them.
o There is no restriction as to how many occurences of an option
type can be present in the hop-by-hop header.
This document details a low bandwidth Denial of Service attack on
ipv6 routers/hosts using the hop-by-hop options extension header and
possible ways of mitigating these attacks.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
2. Details of the attack
The denial of service attack can be carried out by forming an IP
datagram with a large number of TLV encoded options with random
option type identifiers in the hop-by-hop options header. The option
type is a 8 bit field with special meaning attached to the three most
significant bits. The attack is most effective when all the nodes in
the path are affected, meaning we do not want any node to drop the
packet and send ICMP errors regarding unrecognized options. If the
two most significant bits are cleared(0), the receiving node will
silently ignore the option if it does not recognize the option type.
The third most significant bit is used to denote whether the option
data can change en-route. If the bit is set to 1 the option data can
change en route. The attack is equally effective whether or not an
IPSec Authentication Header(AH) treats the option data as zero valued
octets. Hence we can include this bit in generating option types.
The acceptable option types would be laid out like below
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - - -
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | Option Data
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - - -
|0 0 x x x x x x|...............|.................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - - - - - - - -
Figure 1: Option type layout
Since the option types 0(0x00) and 1(0x01) are reserved for the Pad1
and PadN options in [RFC2460] we exclude these from the acceptable
range as well. So we choose the option type identifiers for each of
these options to be in the range 0x02-0x63. More option types
defined by other RFCs can be excluded from the attack as and when
they are allocated by the IANA. Examples are Tunnel Encapsulation
limit (0x04) and Router Alert (0x05).
2.1. Effects of the attack
The attack can be used to cripple the routers by attacking the
control processor rather than the forwarding plane. Since the
control traffic, like the routing protocols, shares the same
resources with this traffic, this kind of attack may be hard to
control. On routers having separate Control and Forwarding elements
only the Control traffic would be affected. For routers whose the
Control and Forwarding elements are fused together this would lead to
problems with forwarding packets as well.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
3. Proposed Solutions
There are at least possible solutions to handle the DoS attack
mentioned in this draft. The first one is to get rid of the feature
altogether and prevent the attacks. The second is to let the attacks
occur, but limit the damage.
3.1. Deprecation
The first solution is to deprecate hop-by-hop options from the IPv6
specification and to stop allocation of any new ones. The existing
hop-by-hop options MAY be grandfathered but new ones MUST NOT be
allocated. This allows existing protocols depending on hop-by-hop
options to continue working, but discourages the development of new
solutions based on hop-by-hop options.
3.2. Rate limiting
A less severe (and less effective) solution is to simply rate limit
packets with hop-by-hop option headers and start dropping them
randomly when the CPU load becomes very high. While this solution is
very simple and has no impact on deployed IPv6 nodes, it is sub-
optimal. A legitimate packet with a hop-by-hop option header has the
same probability of being dropped as an attack packet. Implementing
the solution proposed in this draft does not preclude the use of rate
limiting. In fact it gives a legitimate packet a lower probability
of being dropped, since most of the obvious attack traffic would have
been dropped by the receiving algorithm.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
4. Impact on deployed IPv6 nodes
The proposed changes can affect all currently IPv6 nodes which need
to send and receive packets with hop-by-hop options. If the
deprecation option is chosen, the IPv6 stack on both sending and
receiving nodes needs to be modified to not send or receive hop-by-
hop options. In addition, transit nodes need to be modified as well
in order to not inspect these options.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
5. Security Considerations
This document highlights the possible security issues with the IPv6
hop-by-hop option header specified in [RFC2460] which can lead to
denial of service attacks and suggests some changes to reduce the
effect of the DoS attacks.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
6. IANA Considerations
This requests IANA to stop allocation of new entries for IPv6 hop-by-
hop option types.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
Author's Address
Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada
Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft The case against Hop-by-Hop options July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Krishnan Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 11]