Subject: [v6ops] RA-Guard: Advice on the implementation (feedback requested)

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:44:29 -0300

Folks,

We have just published a revision of our I-D "Implementation Advice for
IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)"
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-01.txt>.

In essence, this is the problem statement, and what this I-D is about:

* RA-Guard is essential to have feature parity with IPv4.

* Most (all?) existing RA-Guard implementations can be trivially evaded:
if the attacker includes extension headers in his packets, the RA-Guard
devices fail to identify the Router Advertisement messages. -- For
instance, THC's "IPv6 attack suite" (<http://www.thc.org/thc-ipv6/>)
contains tools that can evade RA-Guard as indicated.

* The I-D discusses this problem, and provides advice on how to
implement RA-Guard, such that the aforementioned vulnerabilities are
eliminated, we have an effective RA-Guard device, and hence
feature-parity with IPv4.

We'd like feedback on this I-D, including high-level comments on whether
you support the proposal in this I-D.

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 03:01:14 +0000

It is useful for my current deployment.
I like this document in general, will discuss more details with Fernando.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:45 PM, "Fernando Gont" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops