GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7113

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Gont Request for Comments: 7113 Huawei Technologies Updates: 6105 February 2014 Category: Informational ISSN: 2070-1721

Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)

Abstract

 The IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard) mechanism is commonly
 employed to mitigate attack vectors based on forged ICMPv6 Router
 Advertisement messages.  Many existing IPv6 deployments rely on
 RA-Guard as the first line of defense against the aforementioned
 attack vectors.  However, some implementations of RA-Guard have been
 found to be prone to circumvention by employing IPv6 Extension
 Headers.  This document describes the evasion techniques that affect
 the aforementioned implementations and formally updates RFC 6105,
 such that the aforementioned RA-Guard evasion vectors are eliminated.

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/rfc7113.

Gont Informational [Page 1] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2014 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
 2.  Evasion Techniques for Some RA-Guard Implementations . . . . .  3
   2.1.  Attack Vector Based on IPv6 Extension Headers  . . . . . .  3
   2.2.  Attack Vector Based on IPv6 Fragmentation  . . . . . . . .  4
 3.  RA-Guard Implementation Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 4.  Other Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 Appendix A.  Assessment Tools  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction

 IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard) is a mitigation technique
 for attack vectors based on ICMPv6 Router Advertisement [RFC4861]
 messages.  [RFC6104] describes the problem statement of "Rogue IPv6
 Router Advertisements", and [RFC6105] specifies the "IPv6 Router
 Advertisement Guard" functionality.
 The concept behind RA-Guard is that a Layer-2 (L2) device filters
 ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages, according to a number of
 different criteria.  The most basic filtering criterion is that
 Router Advertisement messages are discarded by the L2 device unless
 they are received on a specified port of the L2 device.  Clearly, the
 effectiveness of RA-Guard relies on the ability of the L2 device to
 identify ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages.
 Some popular RA-Guard implementations have been found to be easy to
 circumvent by employing IPv6 Extension Headers [CPNI-IPv6].  This

Gont Informational [Page 2] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 document describes such evasion techniques and provides advice to
 RA-Guard implementers such that the aforementioned evasion vectors
 can be eliminated.
 It should be noted that the previously mentioned techniques could
 also be exploited to evade network monitoring tools such as NDPMon
 [NDPMon], ramond [ramond], and rafixd [rafixd], and could probably be
 exploited to perform stealth DHCPv6 [RFC3315] attacks.

2. Evasion Techniques for Some RA-Guard Implementations

 The following subsections describe two different vectors that have
 been found to be effective for the evasion of popular implementations
 of RA-Guard.  Section 2.1 describes an attack vector based on the use
 of IPv6 Extension Headers with ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages,
 which may be used to circumvent the RA-Guard protection of those
 implementations that fail to process an entire IPv6 header chain when
 trying to identify the ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages.
 Section 2.2 describes an attack method based on the use of IPv6
 fragmentation, possibly in conjunction with the use of IPv6 Extension
 Headers.  This later vector has been found to be effective against
 all existing implementations of RA-Guard.

2.1. Attack Vector Based on IPv6 Extension Headers

 While there is currently no legitimate use for IPv6 Extension Headers
 in ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages, Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861]
 implementations allow the use of Extension Headers with these
 messages, by simply ignoring the received options.  Some RA-Guard
 implementations try to identify ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages
 by simply looking at the "Next Header" field of the fixed IPv6
 header, rather than following the entire header chain.  As a result,
 such implementations fail to identify any ICMPv6 Router Advertisement
 messages that include any Extension Headers (for example, a Hop-by-
 Hop Options header, a Destination Options header, etc.), and can be
 easily circumvented.
 The following figure illustrates the structure of ICMPv6 Router
 Advertisement messages that implement this evasion technique:
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |NH=60|       |NH=58|        |                                |
    +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+        +                                +
    | IPv6 Header |  Dst Opt Hdr |  ICMPv6 Router Advertisement   |
    +             +              +                                +
    |             |              |                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Gont Informational [Page 3] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

2.2. Attack Vector Based on IPv6 Fragmentation

 This section presents a different attack vector, which has been found
 to be effective against all implementations of RA-Guard.  The basic
 idea behind this attack vector is that if the forged ICMPv6 Router
 Advertisement is fragmented into at least two fragments, the L2
 device implementing RA-Guard would be unable to identify the attack
 packet and would thus fail to block it.
 A first variant of this attack vector would be an original ICMPv6
 Router Advertisement message preceded with a Destination Options
 header, which results in two fragments.  The following figure
 illustrates the "original" attack packet, prior to fragmentation, and
 the two resulting fragments that are actually sent as part of the
 attack.
     Original Packet:
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |NH=60|       |NH=58|                           |           |
     +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+                           +           +
     | IPv6 Header |          Dst Opt Hdr            | ICMPv6 RA |
     +             +                                 +           +
     |             |                                 |           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     First Fragment:
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |NH=44|       |NH=60|       |NH=58|                 |
     +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+                 +
     | IPv6 Header |   Frag Hdr  |      Dst Opt Hdr      |
     +             +             +                       +
     |             |             |                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     Second Fragment:
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |NH=44|       |NH=60|       |             |           |
     +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+       +             +           +
     | IPv6 Header |   Frag Hdr  | Dst Opt Hdr | ICMPv6 RA |
     +             +             +             +           +
     |             |             |             |           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Gont Informational [Page 4] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 It should be noted that the "Hdr Ext Len" field of the Destination
 Options header is present in the First Fragment (rather than the
 second).  Therefore, it is impossible for a device processing only
 the second fragment to locate the ICMPv6 header contained in that
 fragment, since it is unknown how many bytes should be "skipped" to
 get to the next header following the Destination Options header.
 Thus, by leveraging the use of the Fragment Header together with the
 use of the Destination Options header, the attacker is able to
 conceal the type and contents of the ICMPv6 message he is sending (an
 ICMPv6 Router Advertisement in this example).  Unless the L2 device
 were to implement IPv6 fragment reassembly, it would be impossible
 for the device to identify the ICMPv6 type of the message.
    An L2 device could, however, at least detect that an ICMPv6
    message (of some type) is being sent, since the "Next Header"
    field of the Destination Options header contained in the First
    Fragment is set to "58" (ICMPv6).
 This idea can be taken further, such that it is also impossible for
 the L2 device to detect that the attacker is sending an ICMPv6
 message in the first place.  This can be achieved with an original
 ICMPv6 Router Advertisement message preceded with two Destination
 Options headers that results in two fragments.  The following figure
 illustrates the "original" attack packet, prior to fragmentation, and
 the two resulting packets that are actually sent as part of the
 attack.
  Original Packet:
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-//+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |NH=60|         |NH=60|       |NH=58|       |           |
  +-+-+-+         +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+       +           +
  |  IPv6 header  | Dst Opt Hdr | Dst Opt Hdr | ICMPv6 RA |
  +               +             +             +           +
  |               |             |             |           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-//+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  First Fragment:
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |NH=44|       |NH=60|       |NH=60|                   |
  +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+                   +
  | IPv6 header |   Frag Hdr  |       Dst Opt Hdr       |
  +             +             +                         +
  |             |             |                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Gont Informational [Page 5] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

  Second Fragment:
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |NH=44|       |NH=60|       |           |NH=58|       |           |
  +-+-+-+       +-+-+-+       +           +-+-+-+       +           +
  | IPv6 header |   Frag Hdr  | Dst O Hdr | Dst Opt Hdr | ICMPv6 RA |
  +             +             +           +             +           +
  |             |             |           |             |           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 In this variant, the "Next Header" field of the Destination Options
 header contained in the First Fragment is set to "60" (Destination
 Options header); thus, it is impossible for a device processing only
 the First Fragment to detect that an ICMPv6 message is being sent in
 the first place.
 The second fragment presents the same challenges as the second
 fragment of the previous variant.  That is, it would be impossible
 for a device processing only the second fragment to locate the second
 Destination Options header (and hence the ICMPv6 header), since the
 "Hdr Ext Len" field of the first Destination Options header is
 present in the First Fragment (rather than the second).

3. RA-Guard Implementation Advice

 The following filtering rules must be implemented as part of an
 RA-Guard implementation on ports that face interfaces that are not
 allowed to send ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages, such that the
 vulnerabilities discussed in this document are eliminated:
 1.  If the IPv6 Source Address of the packet is not a link-local
     address (fe80::/10), RA-Guard must pass the packet.
        RATIONALE: This prevents RA-Guard from dedicating processing
        cycles to filtering packets that originate off-net and that,
        if they are RA's, would not be accepted by the host.  Section
        6.1.2 of [RFC4861] requires nodes to discard Router
        Advertisement messages if their IPv6 Source Address is not a
        link-local address.
 2.  If the Hop Limit is not 255, RA-Guard must pass the packet.
        RATIONALE: This prevents RA-Guard from dedicating processing
        cycles to filtering packets that originate off-net and that,
        if they are RA's, would not be accepted by the destination
        host.  Section 6.1.2 of [RFC4861] requires nodes to discard
        Router Advertisement messages if their Hop Limit is not 255.

Gont Informational [Page 6] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 3.  RA-Guard must parse the entire IPv6 header chain present in the
     packet, to identify whether the packet is a Router Advertisement
     message.
        NOTE: RA-Guard implementations must not enforce a limit on the
        number of bytes they can inspect (starting from the beginning
        of the IPv6 packet), since this could introduce false
        positives: legitimate packets could be dropped simply because
        the RA-Guard device does not parse the entire IPv6 header
        chain present in the packet.  An implementation that has such
        an implementation-specific limit must not claim compliance
        with this specification, and must pass the packet when such
        implementation-specific limit is reached.
 4.  When parsing the IPv6 header chain, if the packet is a First
     Fragment (i.e., a packet containing a Fragment Header with the
     Fragment Offset set to 0) and it fails to contain the entire IPv6
     header chain (i.e., all the headers starting from the IPv6 header
     up to, and including, the upper-layer header), RA-Guard must drop
     the packet and should log the packet drop event in an
     implementation-specific manner as a security fault.
        RATIONALE: [RFC7112] specifies that the First Fragment (i.e.,
        the fragment with the Fragment Offset set to 0) must contain
        the entire IPv6 header chain, and allows intermediate systems
        such as routers to drop those packets that fail to comply with
        this requirement.
        NOTE: This rule should only be applied to IPv6 fragments with
        a Fragment Offset of 0 (non-First Fragments can be safely
        passed, since they will never reassemble into a complete
        datagram if they are part of a Router Advertisement received
        on a port where such packets are not allowed).
 5.  When parsing the IPv6 header chain, if the packet is identified
     to be an ICMPv6 Router Advertisement message or the packet
     contains an unrecognized Next Header value [IANA-IP-PROTO],
     RA-Guard must drop the packet, and should log the packet drop
     event in an implementation-specific manner as a security fault.
     RA-Guard must provide a configuration knob that controls whether
     packets with unrecognized Next Header values are dropped; this
     configuration knob must default to "drop".
        RATIONALE: By definition, Router Advertisement messages are
        required to originate on-link, have a link-local IPv6 Source
        Address, and have a Hop Limit value of 255 [RFC4861].
        [RFC7045] requires that nodes be configurable with respect to

Gont Informational [Page 7] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

        whether packets with unrecognized headers are forwarded, and
        allows the default behavior to be that such packets be
        dropped.
 6.  In all other cases, RA-Guard must pass the packet as usual.
    NOTE: For the purpose of enforcing the RA-Guard filtering policy,
    an Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) header [RFC4303] should be
    considered to be an "upper-layer protocol" (that is, it should be
    considered the last header in the IPv6 header chain).  This means
    that packets employing ESP would be passed by the RA-Guard device
    to the intended destination.  If the destination host does not
    have a security association with the sender of the aforementioned
    IPv6 packet, the packet would be dropped.  Otherwise, if the
    packet is considered valid by the IPsec implementation at the
    receiving host and encapsulates a Router Advertisement message, it
    is up to the receiving host what to do with such a packet.
 If a packet is dropped due to this filtering policy, then the packet
 drop event should be logged in an implementation-specific manner as a
 security fault.  The logging mechanism should include a drop counter
 dedicated to RA-Guard packet drops.
 In order to protect current end-node IPv6 implementations, Rule #4
 has been defined as a default rule to drop packets that cannot be
 positively identified as not being Router Advertisement (RA) messages
 (because the packet is a fragment that fails to include the entire
 IPv6 header chain).  This means that, at least in theory, RA-Guard
 could result in false-positive blocking of some legitimate non-RA
 packets that could not be positively identified as being non-RA.  In
 order to reduce the likelihood of false positives, Rule #1 and Rule
 #2 require that packets that would not pass the required validation
 checks for RA messages (Section 6.1.2 of [RFC4861]) be passed without
 further inspection.  In any case, as noted in [RFC7112], IPv6 packets
 that fail to include the entire IPv6 header chain are virtually
 impossible to police with state-less filters and firewalls and,
 hence, are unlikely to survive in real networks.  [RFC7112] requires
 that hosts employing fragmentation include the entire IPv6 header
 chain in the First Fragment (the fragment with the Fragment Offset
 set to 0), thus eliminating the aforementioned false positives.
 This filtering policy assumes that host implementations require that
 the IPv6 Source Address of ICMPv6 Router Advertisement messages be a
 link-local address and that they discard the packet if this check
 fails, as required by the current IETF specifications [RFC4861].
 Additionally, it assumes that hosts require the Hop Limit of Neighbor
 Discovery messages to be 255, and that they discard those packets
 otherwise.

Gont Informational [Page 8] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 The aforementioned filtering rules implicitly handle the case of
 fragmented packets: if the RA-Guard device fails to identify the
 upper-layer protocol as a result of the use of fragmentation, the
 corresponding packets would be dropped.
 Finally, we note that IPv6 implementations that allow overlapping
 fragments (i.e., that do not comply with [RFC5722]) might still be
 subject of RA-based attacks.  However, a recent assessment of IPv6
 implementations [SI6-FRAG] with respect to their fragment reassembly
 policy seems to indicate that most current implementations comply
 with [RFC5722].

4. Other Implications

 A similar concept to that of RA-Guard has been implemented for
 protecting against forged DHCPv6 messages.  Such protection can be
 circumvented with the same techniques discussed in this document, and
 the countermeasures for such evasion attack are analogous to those
 described in Section 3 of this document.
    [DHCPv6-Shield] specifies a mechanism to protect against rogue
    DHCPv6 servers, while taking into consideration the evasion
    techniques discussed in this document.

5. Security Considerations

 This document describes a number of techniques that have been found
 to be effective to circumvent popular RA-Guard implementations and
 provides advice to RA-Guard implementers such that those evasion
 vulnerabilities are eliminated.
    As noted in Section 3, IPv6 implementations that allow overlapping
    fragments (i.e., that do not comply with [RFC5722]) might still be
    subject of RA-based attacks.  However, most current
    implementations seem to comply with [RFC5722].
 We note that if an attacker sends a fragmented ICMPv6 Router
 Advertisement message on a port not allowed to send such packets, the
 First Fragment would be dropped, and the rest of the fragments would
 be passed.  This means that the victim node would tie memory buffers
 for the aforementioned fragments, which would never reassemble into a
 complete datagram.  If a large number of such packets were sent by an
 attacker, and the victim node failed to implement proper resource
 management for the IPv6 fragment reassembly buffer, this could lead
 to a Denial of Service (DoS).  However, this does not really
 introduce a new attack vector, since an attacker could always perform
 the same attack by sending forged fragmented datagrams in which at

Gont Informational [Page 9] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 least one of the fragments is missing.  [CPNI-IPv6] discusses some
 resource management strategies that could be implemented for the IPv6
 fragment reassembly buffer.
 We note that the most effective and efficient mitigation for these
 attacks would rely on the prohibiting the use of IPv6 fragmentation
 with Router Advertisement messages (as specified by [RFC6980]), such
 that the RA-Guard functionality is easier to implement.  However,
 since such mitigation would require an update to existing
 implementations, it cannot be relied upon in the short or near term.
 Finally, we note that RA-Guard only mitigates attack vectors based on
 ICMPv6 Router advertisement messages.  Protection against similar
 attacks based on other messages (such as DCHPv6) is considered out of
 the scope of this document and is left for other documents (e.g.,
 [DHCPv6-Shield]).

6. Acknowledgements

 The author would like to thank Ran Atkinson, who provided very
 detailed comments and suggested text that was incorporated into this
 document.
 The author would like to thank Ran Atkinson, Karl Auer, Robert
 Downie, Washam Fan, David Farmer, Mike Heard, Marc Heuse, Nick
 Hilliard, Ray Hunter, Joel Jaeggli, Simon Perreault, Arturo Servin,
 Gunter van de Velde, James Woodyatt, and Bjoern A. Zeeb, for
 providing valuable comments on earlier versions of this document.
 The author would like to thank Arturo Servin, who presented this
 document at IETF 81.
 This document resulted from the project "Security Assessment of the
 Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)" [CPNI-IPv6], carried out by
 Fernando Gont on behalf of the UK Centre for the Protection of
 National Infrastructure (CPNI).

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC3315]        Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
                  C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
                  Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 [RFC4303]        Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
                  RFC 4303, December 2005.

Gont Informational [Page 10] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 [RFC4861]        Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H.
                  Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                  (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007.
 [RFC5722]        Krishnan, S., "Handling of Overlapping IPv6
                  Fragments", RFC 5722, December 2009.
 [RFC6105]        Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C.,
                  and J. Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard",
                  RFC 6105, February 2011.
 [RFC6980]        Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6
                  Fragmentation with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery",
                  RFC 6980, August 2013.
 [RFC7045]        Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and
                  Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
                  December 2013.
 [RFC7112]        Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications
                  of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112,
                  January 2014.

7.2. Informative References

 [CPNI-IPv6]      Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet
                  Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", UK Centre for the
                  Protection of National Infrastructure, (available on
                  request).
 [DHCPv6-Shield]  Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-
                  Shield: Protecting Against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers",
                  Work in Progress, October 2013.
 [IANA-IP-PROTO]  IANA, "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers",
                  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/>.
 [NDPMon]         "NDPMon - IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol Monitor",
                  <http://ndpmon.sourceforge.net/>.
 [RFC6104]        Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router
                  Advertisement Problem Statement", RFC 6104,
                  February 2011.
 [SI6-FRAG]       SI6 Networks, "IPv6 NIDS evasion and improvements in
                  IPv6 fragmentation/reassembly", 2012,
                  <http://blog.si6networks.com/2012/02/
                  ipv6-nids-evasion-and-improvements-in.html>.

Gont Informational [Page 11] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

 [SI6-IPv6]       "SI6 Networks' IPv6 toolkit",
                  <http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>.
 [THC-IPV6]       "The Hacker's Choice IPv6 Attack Toolkit",
                  <http://www.thc.org/thc-ipv6/>.
 [rafixd]         "rafixd", <http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb2.cgi/kame/
                  kame/kame/rafixd/>.
 [ramond]         "ramond", <http://ramond.sourceforge.net/>.

Gont Informational [Page 12] RFC 7113 RA-Guard Implementation Advice February 2014

Appendix A. Assessment Tools

 [SI6-IPv6] is a publicly available set of tools (for Linux, *BSD, and
 Mac OS) that implements the techniques described in this document.
 [THC-IPV6] is a publicly available set of tools (for Linux) that
 implements some of the techniques described in this document.

Author's Address

 Fernando Gont
 Huawei Technologies
 Evaristo Carriego 2644
 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires  1706
 Argentina
 Phone: +54 11 4650 8472
 EMail: fgont@si6networks.com

Gont Informational [Page 13]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7113.txt · Last modified: 2014/02/11 21:43 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki