nanog mailing list archives

Re: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?


From: Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:37:40 -0700

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:31 PM Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:

If you are using 2002::/16 you know are relying on third parties.


I highlly doubt most people using 6to4 know they are using it, let alone
the arbitrary nature of its routing.

Not that it is much
different to any other address where you are relying on third parties.

If one is going to filter 2002::/16 from BGP then install your own gateway
to preserve
the functionality.

On 19 Jun 2018, at 10:23 am, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:



On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:37 PM Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
If a ASN is announcing 2002::/16 then they are are happy to get the
traffic.  It
they don’t want it all they have to do is withdraw the prefix.  It is
not up to
the rest of us to second guess their decision to keep providing support.

That sounds like an interesting attack scenario where a malicious actor
can insert themselves in a path, via bgp, announcing 6to4 space


If you filter 2002::/16 then you are performing a denial-of-service
attack on
the few sites that are still using it DELIBERATELY.

None of the problems required removing it from BGP.  There were end
sites that
had firewalls that blocked 6to4 responses and the odd site that ran a
gateway
and failed to properly manage it.  The rest could have been dealt with by
configuring more gateways.  If every dual stacked ASN had run their own
gateways
there wouldn’t have been a scaling issue.  i.e. take the 2002::/16
traffic and
dump it onto IPv4 as soon as possible and take the encapsulated traffic
for the
rest of IPv6 and de-encapsulate it as soon as possible.

Mark
On 19 Jun 2018, at 8:56 am, McBride, Mack <C-Mack.McBride () charter com>
wrote:

This should have been filtered before.
Lots of people improperly implemented this so it caused issues.

Mack

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of John
Kristoff
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 3:48 PM
To: Job Snijders <job () ntt net>
Cc: NANOG [nanog () nanog org] <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Time to add 2002::/16 to bogon filters?

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:08:05 +0000
Job Snijders <job () ntt net> wrote:

TL;DR: Perhaps it is time to add 2002::/16 to our EBGP bogon filters?

Hi Job,

I've been asking people about this recently.  I don't particularly
like having misdirected traffic or badly configured hosts sending junk to
those who happen to be announcing addresses from this prefix.  I'm planning
on adding this to a bogon filter here.

John
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message
and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, cop
<https://maps.google.com/?q=ed+that+any+use,+dissemination,+distribution,+cop&entry=gmail&source=g>ying,
or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.


--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org


--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org




Current thread: