Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J-M. Combes Request for Comments: 5909 France Telecom Orange Category: Informational S. Krishnan ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson

                                                              G. Daley
                                                     Netstar Logicalis
                                                             July 2010
        Securing Neighbor Discovery Proxy: Problem Statement


 Neighbor Discovery Proxies are used to provide an address presence on
 a link for nodes that are no longer present on the link.  They allow
 a node to receive packets directed at its address by allowing another
 device to perform Neighbor Discovery operations on its behalf.
 Neighbor Discovery Proxy is used in Mobile IPv6 and related protocols
 to provide reachability from nodes on the home network when a Mobile
 Node is not at home, by allowing the Home Agent to act as proxy.  It
 is also used as a mechanism to allow a global prefix to span multiple
 links, where proxies act as relays for Neighbor Discovery messages.
 Neighbor Discovery Proxy currently cannot be secured using Secure
 Neighbor Discovery (SEND).  Today, SEND assumes that a node
 advertising an address is the address owner and in possession of
 appropriate public and private keys for that node.  This document
 describes how existing practice for proxy Neighbor Discovery relates
 to SEND.

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

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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
 ( 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.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 2.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.  IPv6 Mobile Nodes and Neighbor Discovery Proxy . . . . . .  4
   2.2.  IPv6 Fixed Nodes and Neighbor Discovery Proxy  . . . . . .  6
   2.3.  Bridge-Like ND Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 3.  Proxy Neighbor Discovery and SEND  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.1.  CGA Signatures and Proxy Neighbor Discovery  . . . . . . .  9
   3.2.  Non-CGA Signatures and Proxy Neighbor Discovery  . . . . . 10
   3.3.  Securing Proxy DAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.4.  Securing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 4.  Potential Approaches to Securing Proxy ND  . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.1.  Secured Proxy ND and Mobile IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.1.  Mobile IPv6 and Router-Based Authorization . . . . . . 13
     4.1.2.  Mobile IPv6 and Per-Address Authorization  . . . . . . 13
     4.1.3.  Cryptographic-Based Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.1.4.  Solution Based on the 'Point-to-Point' Link Model  . . 14
   4.2.  Secured Proxy ND and Bridge-Like Proxies . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.1.  Authorization Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.2.  Unauthorized Routers and Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.3.  Multiple Proxy Spans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.2.4.  Routing Infrastructure Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.2.5.  Local Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2.6.  Host Delegation of Trust to Proxies  . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.3.  Proxying Unsecured Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 5.  Two or More Nodes Defending the Same Address . . . . . . . . . 18
 6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.1.  Router Trust Assumption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.2.  Certificate Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.3.  Timekeeping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Introduction

 Neighbor Discovery Proxy is defined in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
 [RFC4861].  It is used in networks where a prefix has to span
 multiple links [RFC4389] but also in Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] (and so in
 Mobile-IPv6-based protocols like Network Mobility (NEMO) [RFC3963],
 Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC5568], or Hierarchical
 Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [RFC5380]) and in the Internet Key Exchange
 Protocol (IKE) version 2 (IKEv2) [RFC4306].  It allows a device that
 is not physically present on a link to have another advertise its
 presence, and forward packets to the off-link device.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Neighbor Discovery Proxy relies upon another device, the proxy, to
 monitor for Neighbor Solicitations (NSs), and answer with Neighbor
 Advertisements (NAs).  These proxy Neighbor Advertisements direct
 data traffic through the proxy.  Proxied traffic is then forwarded to
 the end destination.

2. Scenarios

 This section describes the different scenarios where the interaction
 between Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) and ND Proxy raises issues.

2.1. IPv6 Mobile Nodes and Neighbor Discovery Proxy

 The goal of IPv6 mobility is to allow nodes to remain reachable while
 moving around in the IPv6 Internet.  The following text is focused on
 Mobile IPv6 but the issue raised by the interaction between SEND and
 ND Proxy may be the same with Mobile IPv6 based protocols (e.g.,
 For Mobile IPv6 Mobile Nodes (MNs), it is necessary to keep existing
 sessions going or to allow new sessions even when one leaves the home
 In order to continue existing sessions, when nodes are present on the
 home link, the Proxy (i.e., the Home Agent in Mobile IPv6) sends an
 unsolicited NA to the all-nodes multicast address on the home link as
 specified [RFC3775].
 For new sessions, the Proxy, which listens to the MN's address
 responds with a Neighbor Advertisement that originates at its own
 IPv6 address and has the proxy's address as the Target Link-Layer
 Address, but contains the absent mobile in the Target Address field
 of the Neighbor Advertisement.  In this case, SEND cannot be applied
 because the address in the Target Address field is not the same as
 the one in the Source Address field of the IP header.
 As seen in Figure 1, solicitors send a multicast solicitation to the
 solicited nodes multicast address (based on the unicast address) of
 the absent node (a mobile node that is away from the home link).

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

          Absent Mobile       Proxy         Solicitor
                             +-----+     SL2=s,DL2=sol(a),SLL=s
                             |     |<================
                             |     |
                             |     |================>
                             +-----+  NA:SL3=P,DL3=S,TA=A,
    SL3: Source      IPv6 Address         NS: Neighbor Solicitation
    DL3: Destination IPv6 Address         NA: Neighbor Advertisement
    SL2: Source Link-Layer Address        RS: Router Solicitation
    DL2: Destination Link-Layer Address   RA: Router Advertisement
    TA:  Target Address
    SLL/TLL:  Source/Target Link-Layer Address Option
                               Figure 1
 While at home, if the MN has configured Cryptographically Generated
 Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972], it can secure establishment by its on-
 link neighbors of Neighbor Cache Entries (NCEs) for its CGAs by using
 SEND [RFC3971].  SEND security requires a node sending Neighbor
 Advertisements for a given address to be in possession of the public/
 private key pair that generated the address.
 When an MN moves away from the home link, a proxy has to undertake
 Neighbor Discovery signaling on behalf of the MN.  In Mobile IPv6,
 the role of the proxy is undertaken by the Home Agent.  While the
 Home Agent has a security association with the MN, it does not have
 access to the public/private key pair used to generate the MN's CGA.
 Thus, the Home Agent acting as an ND proxy cannot use SEND for the
 address it is proxying [RFC3971].
 When an MN moves from the home network to a visited network, the
 proxy will have to override the MN's existing Neighbor Cache Entries
 that are flagged as secure [RFC3971].  This is needed for the Home
 Agent to intercept traffic sent on-link to the MN that would
 otherwise be sent to the MN's link-layer address.
 With the current SEND specification, any solicitation or
 advertisement sent by the proxy will be unsecure and thus will not be
 able to update the MN's NCE for the home address because it is
 flagged as secured.  These existing Neighbor Cache Entries will only
 time-out after Neighbor Unreachability Detection [RFC4861] concludes
 the Home Address is unreachable at the link layer recorded in the

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Where secured proxy services are not able to be provided, a proxy's
 advertisement may be overridden by a rogue proxy without the
 receiving host realizing that an attack has occurred.  This is
 identical to what happens in a network where SEND is not deployed.

2.2. IPv6 Fixed Nodes and Neighbor Discovery Proxy

 This scenario is a sub-case of the previous one.  In this scenario,
 the IPv6 node will never be on the link where the ND messages are
 proxied.  For example, an IPv6 node gains remote access to a network
 protected by a security gateway that runs IKEv2 [RFC4306].  When a
 node needs an IP address in the network protected by a security
 gateway, the security gateway assigns an address dynamically using
 Configuration Payload during IKEv2 exchanges.  The security gateway
 then needs to receive packets sent to this address; one way to do so
 would be to proxy ND messages.

2.3. Bridge-Like ND Proxies

 The Neighbor Discovery (ND) Proxy specification [RFC4389] defines an
 alternative method to classic bridging.  Just as with classic
 bridging, multiple link-layer segments are bridged into a single
 segment, but with the help of proxying at the IP layer rather than
 link-layer bridging.  In this case, the proxy forwards messages while
 modifying their source and destination MAC addresses, and it rewrites
 their solicited and override flags and Link-Layer Address Options.
 This rewriting is incompatible with SEND signed messages for a number
 of reasons:
 o  Rewriting elements within the message will break the digital
 o  The source IP address of each packet is the packet's origin, not
    the proxy's address.  The proxy is unable to generate another
    signature for this address, as it doesn't have the CGA private key
 Thus, proxy modification of SEND solicitations may require sharing of
 credentials between the proxied node and the proxying node or
 creation of new options with proxying capabilities.
 While bridge-like ND proxies aim to provide as little interference
 with ND mechanisms as possible, SEND has been designed to prevent
 modification or spoofing of advertisements by devices on the link.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Of particular note is the fact that ND Proxy performs a different
 kind of proxy Neighbor Discovery to Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] [RFC4389].
 RFC 3775 (Mobile IPv6) specifies that the Home Agent as proxy sends
 Neighbor Advertisements from its own address with the Target Address
 set to the absent Mobile Node's address.  The Home Agent's own link-
 layer address is placed in the Target Link-Layer Address Option
 [RFC3775].  On the other hand, ND Proxy resends messages containing
 their original address, even after modification (i.e., the IP source
 address remains the same) [RFC4389].  Figure 2 describes packet
 formats for proxy Neighbor solicitation and advertisement as
 specified by RFC 4389.
          Advertiser          Proxy         Solicitor
   NS:SL3=S,DL3=Sol(A),TA=A,          NS:SL3=S,DL3=Sol(A),TA=A,
      SL2=p,DL2=sol(a),SLL=p +-----+      SL2=s,DL2=sol(a),SLL=s
          <==================|     |<================
                             |     |
          ==================>|     |================>
   NA:SL3=A,DL3=S,TA=A,      +-----+  NA:SL3=A,DL3=S,TA=A
      SL2=a,DL2=p,TLL=a                  SL2=p,DL2=s,TLL=p
    SL3: Source      IPv6 Address         NS: Neighbor Solicitation
    DL3: Destination IPv6 Address         NA: Neighbor Advertisement
    SL2: Source Link-Layer Address
    DL2: Destination Link-Layer Address
    TA:  Target Address
    SLL/TLL:  Source/Target Link-Layer Address Option
                               Figure 2
 In order to use the same security procedures for both ND Proxy and
 Mobile IPv6, changes may be needed to the proxying procedures in
 [RFC4389], as well as changes to SEND.
 An additional (and undocumented) requirement for bridge-like proxying
 is the operation of router discovery.  Router discovery packets may
 similarly modify Neighbor Cache state, and require protection from
 In Figure 3, the router discovery messages propagate without
 modification to the router address, but elements within the message
 change.  This is consistent with the description of Neighbor
 Discovery above.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

          Advertiser          Proxy         Solicitor
   RS:SL3=S,DL3=AllR,                 RS:SL3=S,DL3=AllR,
      SL2=p,DL2=allr,SLL=p   +-----+     SL2=s,DL2=allr,SLL=s
          <==================|     |<================
                             |     |
          ==================>|     |================>
   RA:SL3=A,DL3=S,           +-----+  RA:SL3=A,DL3=S,
      SL2=a,DL2=p,SLL=a                 SL2=p,DL2=s,SLL=p
    SL3: Source      IPv6 Address         RS: Router Solicitation
    DL3: Destination IPv6 Address         RA: Router Advertisement
    SL2: Source Link-Layer Address
    DL2: Destination Link-Layer Address
    TA:  Target Address
    SLL/TLL:  Source/Target Link-Layer Address Option
                               Figure 3
 Once again, these messages may not be signed with a CGA signature by
 the proxy, because it does not own the source address.
 Additionally, Authorization Delegation Discovery messages need to be
 exchanged for bridge-like ND proxies to prove their authority to
 forward.  Unless the proxy receives explicit authority to act as a
 router, or the router knows of its presence, no authorization may be
 made.  This explicit authorization requirement may be at odds with
 the zero configuration goal of ND proxying [RFC4389].
 An alternative (alluded to in an appendix of ND Proxy [RFC4389])
 suggests that the proxy send Router Advertisements (RAs) from its own
 address.  As described by ND Proxy, this is insufficient for
 providing proxied Neighbor Advertisement service, but may be matched
 with Neighbor solicitation and advertisement services using the
 proxy's source address in the same way as Mobile IPv6 [RFC4389]
 [RFC3775].  This means that all router and Neighbor advertisements
 would come from the proxied address, but may contain a target address
 that allows proxied Neighbor presence to be established with peers on
 other segments.  Router discovery in this case has the identity of
 the original (non-proxy) router completely obscured in router
 discovery messages.
 The resultant proxy messages would have no identifying information
 indicating their origin, which means that proxying between multiple
 links would require state to be stored on outstanding solicitations
 (effectively a ND only NAT).  This level of state storage may be

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Mobile IPv6 does not experience this issue when supplying its own
 address, since ND messages are never forwarded on to the absent node
 (the Home Agent having sufficient information to respond itself).
 Authorization from a router may still be required for Router
 Advertisement, and will be discussed in Section 4.2.

3. Proxy Neighbor Discovery and SEND

 There are currently no existing secured Neighbor Discovery procedures
 for proxied addresses, and all Neighbor Advertisements from SEND
 nodes are required to have equal source and target addresses, and be
 signed by the transmitter (Section 7.4 of [RFC3971]).
 Signatures over SEND messages are required to be applied on the CGA
 source address of the message, and there is no way of indicating that
 a message is proxied.
 Even if the message is able to be transmitted from the original
 owner, differences in link-layer addressing and options require
 modification by a proxy.  If a message is signed with a CGA-based
 signature, the proxy is unable to regenerate a signature over the
 changed message as it lacks the keying material.
 Therefore, a router wishing to provide proxy Neighbor Advertisement
 service cannot use existing SEND procedures on those messages.
 A host may wish to establish a session with a device that is not on-
 link but is proxied.  As a SEND host, it prefers to create Neighbor
 Cache Entries using secured procedures.  Since SEND signatures cannot
 be applied to an existing proxy Neighbor Advertisement, it must
 accept non-SEND advertisements in order to receive proxy Neighbor
 Neighbor Cache spoofing of another node therefore becomes trivial, as
 any address may be proxy-advertised to the SEND node, and overridden
 only if the node is there to protect itself.  When a node is present
 to defend itself, it may also be difficult for the solicitor
 determine the difference between a proxy-spoofing attack, and a
 situation where a proxied device returns to a link and overrides
 other proxy advertisers [RFC4861].

3.1. CGA Signatures and Proxy Neighbor Discovery

 SEND defines one public-key and signature format for use with
 Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972].  CGAs are
 intended to tie address ownership to a particular public/private key

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 In SEND as defined today, Neighbor Discovery messages (including the
 IP Addresses from the IPv6 header) are signed with the same key used
 to generate the CGA.  This means that message recipients have proof
 that the signer of the message owned the address.
 When a proxy replaces the message's source IPv6 address with its own
 CGA, the existing CGA option and RSA signature option would need to
 be replaced with ones that correspond to the CGA of the proxy.  To be
 valid according to the SEND specification, the Target Address of the
 Neighbor Advertisement message would need to be replaced also to be
 equal to the Source Address [RFC3971].
 Additional authorization information may be needed to prove that the
 proxy is indeed allowed to advertise for the target address, as is
 described in Section 4.

3.2. Non-CGA Signatures and Proxy Neighbor Discovery

 Where a proxy retains the original source address in a proxied
 message, existing security checks for SEND will fail, since fields
 within the message will be changed.  In order to achieve secured
 proxy Neighbor Discovery in this case, extended authorization
 mechanisms may be needed for SEND.
 SEND provides mechanisms for extension of SEND to non-CGA-based
 authorization.  Messages are available for Authorization Delegation
 Discovery, which is able to carry arbitrary PKIX/X.509 certificates
 There is, however, no specification of keying information option
 formats analogous to the SEND CGA Option [RFC3971].  The existing
 option allows a host to verify message integrity by specifying a key
 and algorithm for digital signature, without providing authorization
 via mechanisms other than CGA ownership.
 The digital signature in SEND is transported in the RSA Signature
 Option.  As currently specified, the signature operation is performed
 over a CGA Message type, and allows for CGA verification.  Updating
 the signature function to support non-CGA operations may be
 Within SEND, more advanced functions such as routing may be
 authorized by certificate path verification using Authorization
 Delegation Discovery.
 With non-CGA signatures and authentication, certificate contents for
 authorization may need to be determined, as outlined in Section 4.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 While SEND provides for extensions to new non-CGA methods, existing
 SEND hosts may silently discard messages with unverifiable RSA
 signature options (Section 5.2.2 of [RFC3971]), if configured only to
 accept SEND messages.  In cases where unsecured Neighbor Cache
 Entries are still accepted, messages from new algorithms will be
 treated as unsecured.

3.3. Securing Proxy DAD

 Initiation of proxy Neighbor Discovery also requires Duplicate
 Address Detection (DAD) checks of the address [RFC4862].  These DAD
 checks need to be performed by sending Neighbor Solicitations, from
 the unspecified source address, with the target being the proxied
 In existing SEND procedures, the address that is used for CGA tests
 on DAD NS is the target address.  A Proxy that originates this
 message while the proxied address owner is absent is unable to
 generate a CGA-based signature for this address and must undertake
 DAD with an unsecured NS.  It may be possible that the proxy can
 ensure that responding NAs are secured though.
 Where bridge-like ND proxy operations are being performed, DAD NSs
 may be copied from the original source, without modification
 (considering they have an unspecified source address and contain no
 link-layer address options) [RFC4389].
 If non-CGA-based signatures are available, then the signature over
 the DAD NS doesn't need to have a CGA relationship to the Target
 Address, but authorization for address configuration needs to be
 shown using certificates.
 In case there is a DAD collision between two SEND nodes on different
 interfaces of the proxy, it is possible that the proxy may not have
 the authority to modify the NA defending the address.  In this case,
 the proxy still needs to modify the NA and pass it onto the other
 interfaces even if it will fail SEND verification on the receiving

3.4. Securing Router Advertisements

 While Router Solicitations are protected in the same manner as
 Neighbor Solicitations, the security for Router Advertisements is
 mainly based on the use of certificates.  Even though the mechanism
 for securing RAs is different, the problems that arise due to the
 modification of the L2 addresses are exactly the same: the proxy
 needs to have the right security material (e.g., certificate) to sign
 the RA messages after modification.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

4. Potential Approaches to Securing Proxy ND

 SEND nodes already have the concept of delegated authority through
 requiring external authorization of routers to perform their routing
 and advertisement roles.  The authorization of these routers takes
 the form of delegation certificates.
 Proxy Neighbor Discovery requires a delegation of authority (on
 behalf of the absent address owner) to the proxier.  Without this
 authority, other devices on the link have no reason to trust an
 For bridge-like proxies, it is assumed that there is no preexisting
 trust between the host owning the address and the proxy.  Therefore,
 authority may necessarily be dynamic or based on topological roles
 within the network [RFC4389].
 Existing trust relationships lend themselves to providing authority
 for proxying in two alternative ways.
 First, the SEND router authorization mechanisms described above
 provide delegation from the organization responsible for routing in
 an address domain to the certified routers.  It may be argued that
 routers so certified may be trusted to provide service for nodes that
 form part of a link's address range, but are themselves absent.
 Devices which are proxies could either be granted the right to proxy
 by the network's router, or be implicitly allowed to proxy by virtue
 of being an authorized router.
 Second, where the proxied address is itself a CGA, the holder of the
 public and private keys is seen to be authoritative about the
 address's use.  If this address owner was able to sign the proxier's
 address and public key information, it would be possible to identify
 that the proxy is known and trusted by the CGA address owner for
 proxy service.  This method requires that the proxied address know or
 learn the proxy's address and public key, and that the certificate
 signed by the proxied node's is passed to the proxy, either while
 they share the same link, or at a later stage.
 In both methods, the original address owner's advertisements need to
 override the proxy if it suddenly returns, and therefore timing and
 replay protection from such messages need to be carefully considered.

4.1. Secured Proxy ND and Mobile IPv6

 Mobile IPv6 has a security association between the Mobile Node and
 Home Agent.  The Mobile Node sends a Binding Update to the Home
 Agent, to indicate that it is not at home.  This implies that the

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Mobile Node wishes the Home Agent to begin proxy Neighbor Discovery
 operations for its home address(es).

4.1.1. Mobile IPv6 and Router-Based Authorization

 A secured Proxy Neighbor Advertisements proposal based on existing
 router trust would require no explicit authorization signaling
 between HA and MN to allow proxying.  Hosts on the home link will
 believe proxied advertisements solely because they come from a
 trusted router.
 Where the home agent operates as a router without explicit trust to
 route from the advertising routing infrastructure (such as in a home,
 with a router managed by an ISP), more explicit proxying
 authorization may be required, as described in Section 4.2.

4.1.2. Mobile IPv6 and Per-Address Authorization

 Where proxy Neighbor Discovery is delegated by the MN to the home
 agent, the MN needs to learn the public key for the Home Agent, so
 that it can generate a certificate authorizing the public/private key
 pair to be used in proxying.  It may conceivably do this using
 Certificate Path Solicitations either over a home tunnel, when it is
 away from home, or during router discovery while still at home
 [RFC3971] [RFC3775].
 When sending its Binding Update to the HA, the MN would need to
 provide a certificate containing the subject's (i.e., proxy HA's)
 public key and address, the issuer's (i.e., MN's) CGA and public key,
 and timestamps indicating when the authority began and when it ends.
 This certificate would need to be transmitted at binding time.
 Messaging or such an exchange mechanism would have to be developed.

4.1.3. Cryptographic-Based Solutions

 Specific cryptographic algorithms may help to allow trust between
 entities of a same group.
 This is the case, for example, with ring signature algorithms.  These
 algorithms generate a signature using the private key of any member
 from the same group, but to verify the signature the public keys of
 all group members are required.  Applied to SEND, the addresses are
 cryptographically generated using multiple public keys, and the
 Neighbor Discovery messages are signed with an RSA ring signature
 [RING].  (Note that the cryptographic algorithms that are the
 foundation for [RING] and other similar solutions are not widely
 accepted in the security community; additional research is needed
 before a Standards Track protocol could be developed.)

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

4.1.4. Solution Based on the 'Point-to-Point' Link Model

 Another approach is to use the 'Point-to-Point' link model.
 In this model, one prefix is provided per MN, and only an MN and the
 HA are on a same link.  The consequence is the HA no longer needs to
 act as ND Proxy.
 One way to design such a solution is to use virtual interfaces, on
 the MN and the HA, and a virtual link between them.  Addresses
 generated on the virtual interfaces will only be advertised on the
 virtual link.  For Mobile IPv6, this results in a virtual Home
 Network where the MN will never come back.

4.2. Secured Proxy ND and Bridge-Like Proxies

 In link-extension environments, the role of a proxy is more
 explicitly separated from that of a router.  In SEND, routers may
 expect to be authorized by the routing infrastructure to advertise
 and may provide this authority to hosts in order to allow them to
 change forwarding state.
 Proxies are not part of the traditional infrastructure of the
 Internet, and hosts or routers may not have an explicit reason to
 trust them, except that they can forward packets to regions where
 otherwise those hosts or routers could not reach.

4.2.1. Authorization Delegation

 If a proxy can convince a device that it should be trusted to perform
 proxying function, it may require that device to vouch for its
 operation in dealing with other devices.  It may do this by receiving
 a certificate, signed by the originating device that the proxy is
 believed capable of proxying under certain circumstances.
 This allows nodes receiving proxied Neighbor Discovery packets to
 quickly check if the proxy is authorized for the operation.  There
 are several bases for such trust, and requirements in proxied
 environments, which are discussed below.

4.2.2. Unauthorized Routers and Proxies

 Routers may be advertising on networks without any explicit
 authorization, and SEND hosts will register these routers if there
 are no other options [RFC3971].  While proxies may similarly attempt
 to advertise without authority, this provides no security for the
 routing infrastructure.  Any device can be setup as a SEND proxy/
 router so long as it signs its own ND messages from its CGA.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 This may not help in the case that a proxy attempts to update
 Neighbor Cache Entries for a SEND node that moves between links,
 since the SEND node's authority to advertise its own CGA address
 would not be superseded by a proxy with no credentials.

4.2.3. Multiple Proxy Spans

 Proxies may have multiple levels of nesting, which allow the network
 to connect between non-adjacent segments.
 In this case, authority delegated at one point will have to be
 redelegated (possibly in a diluted form) to proxies further away from
 the origin of the trust.
     Trust        Proxy A            Proxy B     Distant
     Origin - T                                  Node - D
      +-----+                                    +-----+
      |     |                                    |     |
      +-----+     +-----+            +-----+     +-----+
         |        |     |            |     |        |
      ------------|     |------------|     |----------
                  |     |            |     |
                  +-----+            +-----+
        ==========>     ==============>    ==========>
        Deleg(A,T)    Deleg(B,Deleg(A,T))   Advertise(D, Deleg(B,
                               Figure 4
 As shown in Figure 4, the Proxy A needs to redelegate authority to
 proxy for T to Proxy B; this allows it to proxy advertisements that
 target T back to D.

4.2.4. Routing Infrastructure Delegation

 Where it is possible for the proxy to pre-establish trust with the
 routing infrastructure, or at least to the local router, it may be
 possible to authorize proxying as a function of routing within the
 subnet.  The router or CA may then be able to certify proxying for
 only a subset of the prefixes for which it is itself certified.
 If a router or CA provides certification for a particular prefix, it
 may be able to indicate that only proxying is supported, so that
 Neighbor Cache Entries of routers connected to Internet
 infrastructure are never overridden by the proxy, if the router is
 present on a segment.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 Hosts understanding such certificates may allow authorized proxies
 and routers to override the host when assuming proxy roles, if the
 host is absent.
 Proxy certificate signing could be done either dynamically (requiring
 exchanges of identity and authorization information) or statically
 when the network is set up.

4.2.5. Local Delegation

 Where no trust tie exists between the authority that provides the
 routing infrastructure and the provider of bridging and proxying
 services, it may still be possible for SEND hosts to trust the
 bridging provider to authorize proxying operations.
 SEND itself requires that routers be able to show authorization, but
 doesn't require routers to have a single trusted root.
 A local bridging/proxying authority trust delegation may be possible.
 It would be possible for this authority to pass out local-use
 certificates, allowing proxying on a specific subnet or subnets, with
 a separate authorization chain to those subnets for the routers with
 Internet access.
 This would require little modification to SEND, other than the
 addition of router-based proxy authority (as in Section 4.2.4), and
 proxies would in effect be treated as routers by SEND hosts
 [RFC3971].  Distribution of keying and trust material for the initial
 bootstrap of proxies would not be provided though (and may be
 Within small domains, key management and distribution may be a
 tractable problem, so long as these operations are simple enough to
 Since these domains may be small, it may be necessary to provide
 certificate chains for trust anchors that weren't requested in
 Certificate Path Solicitations, if the proxy doesn't have a trust
 chain to any requested trust anchor.
 This is akin to 'suggesting' an appropriate trusted root.  It may
 allow for user action in allowing trust extension when visiting
 domains without ties to a global keying infrastructure.  In this
 case, the trust chain would have to start with a self-signed
 certificate from the original CA.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

4.2.6. Host Delegation of Trust to Proxies

 Unlike Mobile IPv6, for bridge-like proxied networks, there is no
 existing security association upon which to transport proxying
 authorization credentials.
 Thus, proxies need to convince Neighbors to delegate proxy authority
 to them, in order to proxy-advertise to nodes on different segments.
 It will be difficult without additional information to distinguish
 between legitimate proxies and devices that have no need or right to
 proxy (and may want to make two network segments appear connected).
 When proxy advertising, proxies must not only identify that proxying
 needs to occur, but provide proof that they are allowed to do so, so
 that SEND Neighbor Cache Entries may be updated.  Unless the
 authorization to update such entries is tied to address ownership
 proofs from the proxied host or the verifiable routing
 infrastructure, spoofing may occur.
 When a host received a proxied Neighbor advertisement, it would be
 necessary to check authorization in the same way that authorization
 delegation discovery is performed in SEND.
 Otherwise, certificate transport will be required to exchange
 authorization between proxied nodes and proxies.
 Proxies would have to be able to delegate this authorization to
 downstream proxies, as described in Section 4.2.3.

4.3. Proxying Unsecured Addresses

 Where the original Neighbor Discovery message is unsecured, there is
 an argument for not providing secured proxy service for that node.
 In both the Mobile IPv6 and extended networks cases, the node may
 arrive back at the network and require other hosts to map their
 existing Neighbor Cache Entry to the node's link-layer address.  The
 re-arriving node's overriding of link-layer address mappings will
 occur without SEND in this case.
 It is notable that without SEND protection any node may spoof the
 arrival, and effectively steal service across an extended network.
 This is the same as in the non-proxy case, and is not made
 significantly worse by the proxy's presence (although the identity of
 the attacker may be masked if source addresses are being replaced).

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 If signatures over the proxied messages were to be used, re-arrival
 and override of the Neighbor Cache Entries would have to be allowed,
 so the signatures would indicate that at least the proxy wasn't
 spoofing (even if the original sender was).
 For non-SEND routers, though, it may be possible for secured proxies
 to send signed router advertisement messages, in order to ensure that
 routers aren't spoofed, and subsequently switched to different parts
 of the extended network.
 This has problems in that the origin is again unsecured, and any node
 on the network could spoof router advertisement for an unsecured
 address.  These spoofed messages may become almost indistinguishable
 (except for the non-CGA origin address) from unspoofed messages from
 SEND routers.
 Given these complexities, the simplest method is to allow unsecured
 devices to be spoofed from any port on the network, as is the case

5. Two or More Nodes Defending the Same Address

 All the previous sections of this document focused on the case where
 two nodes defend the same address (i.e., the node and the proxy).
 However, there are also cases where two or more nodes are defending
 the same address.  This is at least the case for:
 o  Nodes having the same address, as the Mobile Access Gateway's
    (MAG's) ingress link-local address in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
 o  Nodes having a common anycast address [RFC4291].
 The problem statement, described previously in this document, applies
 for these cases, and the issues are the same from a signaling point
 of view.
 Multicast addresses are not mentioned here because Neighbor Discovery
 Protocol is not used for them.
 In the first case, [RFC5213] assumes that the security material used
 by SEND (i.e., public-private key pair) is shared between all the
 MAGs.  For the second case, there is no solution today.  But, in the
 same way, it should be possible to assume that the nodes having a
 common anycast address could also share the security material.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 It is important to notice that when many nodes defending the same
 address are not in the same administrative domain (e.g., MAGs in
 different administrative domains but in the same PMIPv6 domain
 [RFC5213]), sharing the security material used by SEND may raise a
 security issue.

6. Security Considerations

6.1. Router Trust Assumption

 Router-based authorization for Secured Proxy ND may occur without the
 knowledge or consent of a device.  It is susceptible to the 'Good
 Router Goes Bad' attack described in [RFC3756].

6.2. Certificate Transport

 Certificate delegation relies upon transfer of the new credentials to
 the proxying HA in order to undertake ND proxy on its behalf.  Since
 the binding cannot come into effect until DAD has taken place, the
 delegation of the proxying authority necessarily predates the return
 of the Binding Ack, as described in [RFC3775].  In the case above
 described, the home tunnel that comes into creation as part of the
 binding process may be required for transport of Certificate Path
 Solicitations or Advertisements [RFC3971].  This constitutes a
 potential chicken-and-egg problem.  Either modifications to initial
 home binding semantics or certificate transport are required.  This
 may be trivial if certificates are sent in the clear between the MN's
 Care-of Address (CoA) and the HA without being tunneled.

6.3. Timekeeping

 All of the presented methods rely on accurate timekeeping on the
 receiver nodes of Neighbor Discovery Timestamp Options.
 For router-authorized proxy ND, a Neighbor may not know that a
 particular ND message is replayed from the time when the proxied host
 was still on-link, since the message's timestamp falls within the
 valid timing window.  Where the router advertises its secured proxy
 NA, a subsequent replay of the old message will override the NCE
 created by the proxy.
 Creating the NCE in this way, without reference to accurate
 subsequent timing, may only be done once.  Otherwise, the receiver
 will notice that the timestamp of the advertisement is old or doesn't

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 One way of creating a sequence of replayable messages that have
 timestamps likely to be accepted is to pretend to do an unsecured DAD
 on the address each second while the MN is at home.  The attacker
 saves each DAD defense in a sequence.  The granularity of SEND
 timestamp matching is around one second, so the attacker has a set of
 SEND NAs to advertise, starting at a particular timestamp, and valid
 for as many seconds as the original NA gathering occurred.
 This sequence may then be played against any host that doesn't have a
 timestamp history for that MN, by tracking the number of seconds
 elapsed since the initial transmission of the replayed NA to that
 victim, and replaying the appropriate cached NA.
 Where certificate-based authorization of ND proxy is in use, the
 origination/starting timestamp of the delegated authority may be used
 to override a replayed (non-proxy) SEND NA, while also ensuring that
 the Proxy NA's timestamp (provided by the proxy) is fresh.  A
 returning MN would advertise a more recent timestamp than the
 delegated authority and thus override it.  This method is therefore
 not subject to the above attack, since the proxy advertisement's
 certificate will have a timestamp greater than any replayed messages,
 preventing it from being overridden.

7. Acknowledgments

 James Kempf and Dave Thaler particularly contributed to work on this
 document.  Contributions to discussion on this topic helped to
 develop this document.  The authors would also like to thank Jari
 Arkko, Vijay Devarapalli, Mohan Parthasarathy, Marcelo Bagnulo,
 Julien Laganier, Tony Cheneau, Michaela Vanderveen, Sean Shen, and
 Sheng Jiang for their comments and suggestions.
 Jean-Michel Combes is partly funded by MobiSEND, a research project
 supported by the French 'National Research Agency' (ANR).

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
            in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
 [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
            Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
 [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
            RFC 3972, March 2005.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

 [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
            Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
 [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
            RFC 4306, December 2005.
 [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
            Proxies (ND Proxy)", RFC 4389, April 2006.
 [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
            "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
            September 2007.
 [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
            Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

8.2. Informative References

 [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
            Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
            May 2004.
 [RFC3963]  Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
            Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
            RFC 3963, January 2005.
 [RFC5213]  Gundavelli, S., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V., Chowdhury, K.,
            and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5213, August 2008.
 [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
            Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
            Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
            (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
 [RFC5380]  Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., ElMalki, K., and L.
            Bellier, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility
            Management", RFC 5380, October 2008.
 [RFC5568]  Koodli, R., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568,
            July 2009.
 [RING]     Kempf, J. and C. Gentry, "Secure IPv6 Address Proxying
            using Multi-Key Cryptographically Generated Addresses
            (MCGAs)", Work in Progress, August 2005.

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 5909 SEND ND Proxy: Problem Statement July 2010

Authors' Addresses

 Jean-Michel Combes
 France Telecom Orange
 38 rue du General Leclerc
 92794 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex 9
 Suresh Krishnan
 8400 Decarie Blvd.
 Town of Mount Royal
 QC Canada
 Greg Daley
 Netstar Logicalis
 Level 6/616 St Kilda Road
 Melbourne, Victoria  3004
 Phone: +61 401 772 770

Combes, et al. Informational [Page 22]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5909.txt · Last modified: 2010/07/06 22:43 (external edit)