ICMPv6 PTBs and IPv6 frag filtering (particularly at BGP peers)
fgont at si6networks.com
Fri Jan 13 19:29:43 UTC 2017
On 01/12/2017 11:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <CAG6TeAt9eodf-OihH0vow25GFC-P__P+NO9yKMycBsUQhOpYuA at mail.gmail.com>
> , Fernando Gont writes:
>> El 12/1/2017 16:28, "Mark Andrews" <marka at isc.org> escribi=C3=B3:
>>> In message <11ff128d-2fba-7c26-4a9c-5611433d85d2 at si6networks.com>, Fernando Gont writes:
>>>> Hi, Saku,
>>>> On 01/12/2017 11:43 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>>>> On 12 January 2017 at 13:19, Fernando Gont <fgont at si6networks.com>
>>>>>> I'm curious about whether folks are normally filtering ICMPv6 PTB<1280
>>>>>> and/or IPv6 fragments targeted to BGP routers (off-list datapoints are
>>>>> Generally may be understood differently by different people. If
>>>>> generally is defined as single most typical behaviour/configuration,
>>>>> then generally people don't protect their infrastructure in any way at
>>>>> all, but fully rely vendor doing something reasonable.
>>>>> I would argue BCP is to have 'strict' CoPP. Where you specifically
>>>>> allow what you must then have ultimate rule to deny everything. If you
>>>>> have such CoPP, then this attack won't work, as you clearly didn't
>>>>> allow any fragments at all (as you didn't expect to receive BGP
>>>>> fragments from your neighbours).
>>>> That's the point: If you don't allow fragments, but your peer honors
>>>> ICMPv6 PTB<1280, then dropping fragments creates the attack vector.
>>> And fragments are a *normal* part of IP for both IPv4 and IPv6.
>>> This obsession with dropping all fragments (and yes it is a obsession)
>>> is breaking the internet.
>> Vendors got the frag reassembly code wrong so many times , that I
>> understand the folk that decides to drop them if deemed unnecessary.
> Most of them literally decades ago.
Disagree. Microsoft "reinvented" ping-o-death in IPv6, there have been
several one-packet crashes disclosed for Cisco's (an the list continues).
> 20+ years ago while you waited
> for you vendor to fix the bug it made some sense as most of your
> boxes were vulnerable. It was a new threat back then. It doesn't
> make sense today.
Let's face it: The quality of many IPv6 implementations is that of IPv4
implementations in the '90s. Sad, but true.
> Packet bigger than 1500 are a part of todays internet. Have a look
> a the stats for dropped fragments. They aren't for the most part
> attack traffic. Its legitmate reply traffic that has been requested.
I don't disagree with you wrt the need for fragmentation in some
scenarios. I'm just saying that when you only employ TCP-based services,
it may make sense to drop fragments targeted *at you*.
Fragmentation is only needed for non-TCP services. and if your system
does not use non-tcp services, it may be a sensible thing to drop
fragments targetted at you.
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
More information about the NANOG