idnits 2.17.1 draft-hilliard-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 112: '... This assignment MAY be carried in a d...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 113: '... The assignment SHOULD NOT be announc...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 115: '...thin this prefix SHOULD NOT be forward...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '...is network block MAY be configured wit...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 4, 2011) is 4673 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 151, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 v6ops Working Group N. Hilliard 3 Internet-Draft INEX 4 Intended status: Informational July 4, 2011 5 Expires: January 5, 2012 7 A Discard Prefix for IPv6 8 draft-hilliard-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-00 10 Abstract 12 Remote triggered black hole filtering describes a method of 13 mitigating against denial-of-service attacks by selectively 14 discarding traffic based on source or destination address. This 15 document explains why a unique IPv6 prefix should be formally 16 assigned by IANA for the purpose of facilitating IPv6 remote 17 triggered black hole filtering. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2012. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. A Discard Prefix for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Operational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 Remote triggered black hole (RTBH) filtering describes a class of 66 methods of blocking IP traffic to or from a specific destination on a 67 network. These methods operate by setting the next-hop address of an 68 IP packet with a specified source or destination address to be a 69 unicast prefix which is wired locally or remotely to a router's 70 discard or null interface. Typically, this information is propagated 71 throughout an autonomous system using a dynamic routing protocol. By 72 deploying RTBH systems across a network, traffic to or from specific 73 destinations may be selectively black-holed in a manner which is 74 efficient, scalable and straightforward to implement. For IPv4, some 75 networks configure RTBH installations using [RFC1918] address space 76 or the address blocks reserved for documentation in [RFC5737]. 78 However RTBH configurations are not documentation, but operationally 79 important features of many public-facing production networks. 80 Furthermore, [RFC3849] specifies that the IPv6 documentation prefix 81 should be filtered in both local and public contexts. On this basis, 82 it is suggested that both private network address blocks and 83 documentation prefixes described in [RFC5737] are inappropriate for 84 the purpose of RTBH configurations. 86 While it could be argued that there are other addresses and address 87 prefixes which could be used for this purpose (e.g. ::/128), or that 88 an operator could assign an address block from their own address 89 space for this purposes, there is currently no operational clarity on 90 what address block would be appropriate or inappropriate to use for 91 this purpose. By creating an assigned discard prefix for IPv6, the 92 IETF will introduce operational clarity and good practice for 93 implementation of IPv6 RTBH configurations. 95 2. A Discard Prefix for IPv6 97 For the purposes of implementing an IPv6 remote triggered black hole 98 filter, a unicast address block is required. There are currently no 99 IPv6 unicast address blocks which are specifically nominated for the 100 purposes of implementing RTBH filters. 102 As [RFC5635] describes situations where more than one discard address 103 may be used for implementing multiple remote triggered black holes, a 104 single assigned prefix is not sufficient to cover all likely RTBH 105 filtering situations. Consequently, an address block is required. 107 The prefix allocated by IANA for the purpose of implementing IPv6 108 remote triggered black holes is xxx::/32. 110 3. Operational Implications 112 This assignment MAY be carried in a dynamic routing protocol within 113 an autonomous system. The assignment SHOULD NOT be announced to 114 third party autonomous systems and IPv6 traffic with an destination 115 address within this prefix SHOULD NOT be forwarded to third party 116 autonomous systems. 118 On networks which implement IPv6 remote triggered black holes, some 119 or all of this network block MAY be configured with a destination of 120 a discard or null interface on any or all IPv6 routers within the 121 autonomous system. 123 4. IANA Considerations 125 IANA is requested to assign a unique /32 unicast address prefix in 126 the IPv6 address registry for the purpose of facilitating remote 127 triggered black hole configurations. 129 5. Security Considerations 131 IPv6 addressing documents do not have any direct impact on Internet 132 infrastructure security. 134 6. References 136 6.1. Normative References 138 [RFC5635] Kumari, W. and D. McPherson, "Remote Triggered Black Hole 139 Filtering with Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)", 140 RFC 5635, August 2009. 142 6.2. Informative References 144 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and 145 E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 146 BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. 148 [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix 149 Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. 151 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 152 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 153 May 2008. 155 [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks 156 Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010. 158 Author's Address 160 Nick Hilliard 161 INEX 162 4027 Kingswood Road 163 Dublin 24 164 IE 166 Email: nick@inex.ie