On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi,
On 12/21/11 9:40 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
I'm afraid you're about 10 years too late for this opinion to make much difference. ;-)
My opinion is that there is never too late to make thinks easier to implement and operate, specially in situation when things are unnecessary complicated. I do not hide that my opinion about SLAAC might look extreme but I have wrote my reasons for that. I do not expect that anything will be changed but the fact that I can see discussion about that topic approximately 2 or 3 times per month (v6ops, dhcwg, ipv6, ...) and that shows that this problem is pain for many people/ISP. Have you ever seen similar discussion related to DHCP(v4). I have not, because there nothing to discuss about. It just works. It works in simple and logical way.
We have been running IPv6 in production for several years (2008) as well (answering this email over IPv6 now, actually) yet I have completely different conclusions about the role of RA and DHCPv6. Weird.
Well, then how many devices do you have in the network that uses IPv6? Do you have implemented first hop security? What will you do when some user runs RA flood attack (http://samsclass.info/ipv6/proj/flood-router6a.htm). What will you do when some user runs NDP Table Exhaustion Attack (http://inconcepts.biz/~jsw/IPv6_NDP_Exhaustion.pdf) ? It is quite easy to bring IPv6 into a server subnet or a small office network. Providing stable and secure connectivity into the network with thousands of access port for the paying customers/users is really a serious issue today.
This is implementation issue. Has to be fixed. Or your have to think about port-security....
I am very interested how the sites with similar number of access ports (users/customers) solve that problems.
If users are not seperated by interfaces you can see similar issues in IPv4 (spoofing attacks)....
I can see that many ISPs prefer to solve that by blocking whole IPv6 traffic instead. But it does not look as a good strategy for deploying IPv6 :-(.
Tomas
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Tomas Podermanski <tpoder@cis.vutbr.cz> wrote:
Hi,
from my perspective the short answer for this never-ending story is:
- SLAAC/RA is totally useless, does not bring any benefit at all and should be removed from IPv6 specs - DHCPv6 should be extended by route options as proposed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-03 - DHCPv6 should be extended by layer 2 address to identify client's L2 address (something that we can see in RFC 6221) - DHCPv6 should be the common way to autoconfigure an address in a IPv6 environment
The long answer is:
I completely disagree with opinion that both DHCPv6 and RA (SLAAC) should be supported. It is easy to say that both have place but it has some consequences. I and my colleagues have been working on deploying IPv6 for a few years and from the operation perspective we conclude into a quite clear opinion in that area. Both SLAAC and DHCPv6 uses a opposite principles although the goal is just one. DHCPv6 is based on a central DHCPv6 server that assigns addresses. SLAAC does opposite - leaves the decision about the address on a client side. However we have to run both of them in a network to provide all necessary pieces of information to the clients (default route and DNS). This brings many implementation and operational complications.
- Clients have to support both SLAAC and DHCPv6 to be able to work in both environments - There must be solved a situation what to do when SLAAC and DHCPv6 provides some conflict information (quite long thread with various opinions can be found at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg14949.html) - The first hop security have to be solved twice - for SLAAC and for DHCPv6. Both of then uses a differed communication way. SLAAC is part of ICMPv6, but DHCPv6 uses "own" UDP communication what does not make things easier. - SLAAC is usually processed in a kernel, DHCPv6 is usually run as a process in the user space. Diagnostic and troubleshooting is more complicated. - DHCPv6 is currently tied with SLAAC (M,O flags), what means that a DHCPv6 client have to wait until some RA message arrives to start DHCPv6 discovery. That unnecessary prolongs whole autoconfiguration process.
Some other issues are also described in [1].
I personally prefer to bury SLAAC once forever for several reasons: - In fact SLAAC does nothing more what DHCPv6 can do. - SLAAC is quite difficult to secure. One (really only ONE) RA packet can destroy the IPv6 connection for all clients in a local network just in a few milliseconds. It also happens accidentally by "connection sharing" in Vista, Win7
(https://openwiki.uninett.no//_media/geantcampus:2011-gn3na3t4-ipv6-gregr.pdf) - The full protection against that behavior it's impossible today. RA-Guard or PACL can be bypassed using extension headers or fragmentation (http://www.mh-sec.de/downloads/mh-ipv6_vulnerabilities.pdf) - With SLAAC is difficult to implement security features like ARP/ND protection/inspection, IP source guard/Dynamic lock down, because all this techniques are based on a MAC-IP database created during a communication with a DHCP server. There are some attempts (ND protection, SAVI) but it does not provide the same level of security. - Just the same technique was introduced in IPv4 as Router Discovery (RFC 1256). Nobody uses it today. Do we really need go through same death way again? (Oh right, we are already going :-( )
Comparing to SLAAC, DHCPv6 have several advantages: - DHCPv6 is very similar to DHCP(v4) and many people are used to using it. - DHCPv6 can potentially do much more - for example handle an information for PXE, options for IP phones, prefix delegation. - DHCPv6 allows handle an information only for some hosts or group of hosts (differed lease time, search list, DNS atc.). With SLAAC it is impossible and all host on a subnet have to share the same set of the configuration information. - Frankly said, I have not found any significant benefit that SLAAC brings.
Unfortunately there is another issue with DUIDs in DHCPv6. But it is a little bit differed tale.
At the beginning the autoconfiguration was meant as easy to use and easy to configure but the result turned out into kind of nightmare. For those who do not know what I am talking about I prepared two images. The first one shows necessary communication before first regular packet can be send over IPv4 (http://hawk.cis.vutbr.cz/~tpoder/tmp/autoconf/IPv4.png) and just the same thing in IPv6 (http://hawk.cis.vutbr.cz/~tpoder/tmp/autoconf/IPv4.png). In IPv4 we have very simple answer if somebody asks for autoconfiguration = use DHCP. In IPv6 the description how things work have to be written into more than 10 pages [1]. I believe that is not what we really wanted.
For those who are interested in that area there are several articles/presentations where we mentioned that topic.
[1] IPv6 Autoconfiguration - Best Practice Document http://www.terena.org/activities/campus-bp/pdf/gn3-na3-t4-cbpd117.pdf
[2] IPv6 - security threads http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/research/view_pub.php?id=9835
[3] Deploying IPv6 in University Campus Network - Practical Problems http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/research/view_pub.php?id=9836
Regards, Tomas Podermanski
On 12/20/11 8:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Different operators will have different preferences in different environments.
Ideally, the IETF should provide complete solutions based on DHCPv6 and on RA and let the operators decide what they want to use in their environments.
Owen
On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Ravi Duggal wrote:
Hi,
IPv6 devices (routers and hosts) can obtain configuration information about default routers, on-link prefixes and addresses from Router Advertisements as defined in Neighbor Discovery. I have been told that in some deployments, there is a strong desire not to use Router Advertisements at all and to perform all configuration via DHCPv6. There are thus similar IETF standards to get everything that you can get from RAs, by using DHCPv6 instead.
As a result of this we see new proposals in IETF that try to do similar things by either extending RA mechanisms or by introducing new options in DHCPv6.
We thus have draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00 that extends DHCPv6 to do what RA does. And now, we have draft-bcd-6man-ntp-server-ra-opt-00.txt that extends RA to advertise the NTP information that is currently done via DHCPv6.
My question is, that which then is the more preferred option for the operators? Do they prefer extending RA so that the new information loaded on top of the RA messages gets known in the single shot when routers do neighbor discovery. Or do they prefer all the extra information to be learnt via DHCPv6? What are the pros and cons in each approach and when would people favor one over the other?
I can see some advantages with the loading information to RA since then one is not dependent on the DHCPv6 server. However, the latter provides its own benefits.
Regards, Ravi D.