The RFC Archive
 The RFC Archive   RFC 6666   « Jump to any RFC number directly 
 RFC Home
Full RFC Index
Recent RFCs
RFC Standards
Best Current Practice
RFC Errata
1 April RFC



IETF RFC 6666



Last modified on Thursday, August 2nd, 2012

Permanent link to RFC 6666
Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6666
Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6666







Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       N. Hilliard
Request for Comments: 6666                                          INEX
Category: Informational                                    D. Freedman
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Claranet
                                                             August 2012


                       A Discard Prefix for IPv6

 Abstract

   Remote triggered black hole filtering describes a method of
   mitigating the effects of denial-of-service attacks by selectively
   discarding traffic based on source or destination address.  Remote
   triggered black hole routing describes a method of selectively re-
   routing traffic into a sinkhole router (for further analysis) based
   on destination address.  This document updates the "IPv6 Special
   Purpose Address Registry" by explaining why a unique IPv6 prefix
   should be formally assigned by IANA for the purpose of facilitating
   IPv6 remote triggered black hole filtering and routing.

 Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6666.















Hilliard & Freedman           Informational                  PAGE 1 top


RFC 6666 IPv6 Discard Prefix August 2012 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................2 1.1. Notational Conventions .....................................3 2. A Discard Prefix for IPv6 .......................................3 3. Operational Implications ........................................4 4. IANA Considerations .............................................4 5. Security Considerations .........................................4 6. References ......................................................5 6.1. Normative References .......................................5 6.2. Informative References .....................................5 1. Introduction Remote Triggered Black Hole (RTBH) filtering describes a class of methods of blocking IP traffic either from a specific source ([RFC 5635]) or to a specific destination ([RFC 3882]) on a network. RTBH routing describes a class of methods of re-routing IP traffic destined to the attacked/targeted host to a special path (tunnel) where a sniffer could capture the traffic for analysis. Both of these methods operate by setting the next-hop address of an IP packet with a specified source or destination address to be a unicast prefix that is connected locally or remotely to a router's discard, null, or tunnel interface. Typically, reachability information for this prefix is propagated throughout an autonomous system using a dynamic routing protocol such as BGP ([RFC 3882]). By deploying RTBH systems across a network, traffic to or from specific destinations may be selectively black-holed or re-routed to a sinkhole device in a manner that is efficient, scalable, and straightforward to implement. Hilliard & Freedman Informational PAGE 2 top

RFC 6666 IPv6 Discard Prefix August 2012 On some networks, operators configure RTBH installations using [RFC 1918] address space or the address blocks reserved for documentation in [RFC 5737]. This approach is inadequate because RTBH configurations are not documentation, but rather operationally important features of many public-facing production networks. Furthermore, [RFC 3849] specifies that the IPv6 documentation prefix should be filtered in both local and public contexts. On this basis, it is suggested that both private network address blocks and the documentation prefixes described in [RFC 5737] are inappropriate for RTBH configurations and that a dedicated IPv6 prefix should be assigned instead. This document updates the "IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry" [IANA-IPV6REG]. 1.1. Notational Conventions 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 [RFC 2119]. 2. A Discard Prefix for IPv6 For the purposes of implementing an IPv6 RTBH configuration, a unicast address block is required. There are currently no IPv6 unicast address blocks that are specifically nominated for the purposes of implementing such RTBH systems. While it could be argued that there are other addresses and address prefixes that could be used for this purpose (e.g., documentation prefixes, private address space), or that an operator could assign an address block from their own address space for this purpose, there is currently no operational clarity on what address block would be appropriate or inappropriate to use for this purpose. By assigning a globally unique discard prefix for IPv6, the IETF will introduce good practice for the implementation of IPv6 RTBH configurations and will facilitate operational clarity by allowing operators to implement consistent and deterministic inter-domain prefix and traffic filtering policies for black-holed traffic. As [RFC 3882] and [RFC 5635] describe situations where more than one discard address may be used for implementing multiple RTBH scenarios, a single address is not sufficient to cover all likely RTBH situations. Consequently, an address block is required. Hilliard & Freedman Informational PAGE 3 top

RFC 6666 IPv6 Discard Prefix August 2012 3. Operational Implications This assignment MAY be carried in a dynamic routing protocol within an autonomous system. The assignment SHOULD NOT be announced to or accepted from third-party autonomous systems, and IPv6 traffic with a destination address within this prefix SHOULD NOT be forwarded to or accepted from third-party autonomous systems. If the prefix or a subnet of the prefix is inadvertently announced to or accepted from a third-party autonomous system, this may cause excessive volumes of traffic to pass unintentionally between the two networks, which would aggravate the effect of a denial-of-service attack. On networks that implement IPv6 remote triggered black holes, some or all of this network block MAY be configured with a next-hop destination of a discard or null interface on any or all IPv6 routers within the autonomous system. 4. IANA Considerations Per this document, IANA has recorded the allocation of the IPv6 address prefix 0100::/64 as a Discard-Only Prefix in the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" and added the prefix to the "IANA IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry" [IANA-IPV6REG]. No end party has been assigned to this prefix. The prefix has been allocated from ::/3. 5. Security Considerations As the prefix specified in this document ought not normally be transmitted or accepted over inter-domain BGP sessions for the reasons described in Section 3, it is usually appropriate to include this prefix in inter-domain BGP prefix filters [RFC 3704] or otherwise ensure the prefix is neither transmitted to nor accepted from a third-party autonomous system. Hilliard & Freedman Informational PAGE 4 top

RFC 6666 IPv6 Discard Prefix August 2012 6. References 6.1. Normative References [IANA-IPV6REG] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry", 2012, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ iana-ipv6-special-registry>. [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC 3882] Turk, D., "Configuring BGP to Block Denial-of-Service Attacks", RFC 3882, September 2004. [RFC 5635] Kumari, W. and D. McPherson, "Remote Triggered Black Hole Filtering with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)", RFC 5635, August 2009. 6.2. Informative References [RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. [RFC 3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. [RFC 3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. [RFC 5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010. Hilliard & Freedman Informational PAGE 5 top

RFC 6666 IPv6 Discard Prefix August 2012 Authors' Addresses Nick Hilliard INEX 4027 Kingswood Road Dublin 24 IE EMail: nick@inex.ie David Freedman Claranet 21 Southampton Row, Holborn London WC1B 5HA UK EMail: david.freedman@uk.clara.net Hilliard & Freedman Informational PAGE 6 top

RFC TOTAL SIZE: 10658 bytes PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, August 2nd, 2012 LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)


RFC-ARCHIVE.ORG

© RFC 6666: The IETF Trust, Thursday, August 2nd, 2012
© the RFC Archive, 2024, RFC-Archive.org
Maintainer: J. Tunnissen

Privacy Statement