nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 Security


From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:10:06 +0100 (CET)

DHCPv6 as defined in RFC 3315 does not offer client MAC address at all
(thus making the job more difficult for a number of organizations).

Yes it does…

What do you think “Link Layer Address” (RFC 3315, Section 9.1 Type 3)
is? From RFC-3315 Section 9.4, it seems pretty clear that is exactly what
this is intended to be. True, it includes an additional 16 bits of
media type,

- I cannot a priori know which DUID type a particular client will use.
Of the three DUID types in RFC 3315 section 9.1, type 1 and 3 include
link layer address while type 2 does not.

- As has already been pointed out, the same physical hardware may use
different DUID types when booted with different operating systems.

- The language in RFC 3315 is pretty explicit in saying that a server
*must* treat the DUID as an opaque value - in other words, you are not
allowed to "inspect" it in any way to find the presumed MAC address
and take any action based on the MAC address.

All I've seen so far indicates that this was a deliberate choice by
the DHCPv6 designers, and in my opinion a very poor one. Fortunately
we now have RFC 6939 (DHCPv6 Client Link-Layer Address Option), and
we're waiting for vendors to implement this. That solves one half of
the problem.

Yes and no.

At the time RFC3315 was written, network cards changed independent of
motherboards on a regular basis and this fact was a source of great
consternation for DHCPv4 operators. Over time, that changed AFTER
RFC3315 was written, but if you read section 9.4, it seems pretty clear that
this change was anticipated by the authors and that DUID-LL was intended
for the situation we have today.

I think understand the well-meant intentions of the RFC 3315 authors.
However, my claim is that the actual end result for IPv6 leaves us in
a *worse* situation than for IPv4. And one which, among others, makes
it very difficult to correlate IPv4 and IPv6 leases (something which
I have no need for today, but which I could easily see a need for in
the future).

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no


Current thread: