Traditional firewall techniques usually permit traffic according to IP addresses or port numbers. More advanced firewalls inspect even packet’s payload – e.g. http traffic. However, neither of these techniques is sufficient when dealing with IPv6 transition techniques. An attacker can easily avoid a security policy in a network by using … Read More
Protocol IPv6 puts new challenges for network administrators in the context of user identification. Unlike IPv4, an IPv6 address no longer uniquely identifies a user or PC. IPv6 address can be randomly generated and keeps changing in time. The presentation describes the system developed at the Brno University of Technology, … Read More
Users in IPv4 networks typically use only one IP address per interface configured either statically or dynamically via DHCPv4 server. Several techniques can be used to detect violation of that policy. However, IPv6 protocol brings new techniques and possibilities to obtain an IPv6 address. New concepts – autoconfiguration, multiple IPv6 addresses per interface or temporary IPv6 addresses providing privacy for end users introduce new challenges for users identification. Network administrators have to collect additional information for user identification from more sources, e.g. DHCPv6 log, routers neighbor cache, Radius logs, syslog etc. This paper presents analysis of IPv6 address assignment used in current networks together with guidelines how to identify a user in IPv6 networks.
Data monitoring and data retention are vital for network management and troubleshooting. The network and provided services are expected to be seamlessly available. Administrators often collect information about the on-going traffic in the form of IP flow records to reveal potential malicious activity that might violate the network usage policy but also to meet legal requirements on providing data about electronic communication to authorized organizations. It is vital not only to collect data about traffic but also to track the identity of users who are responsible for the traffic. The deployment of IPv6 renders unique user identification quite problematic or at least a complex task in comparison with IPv4 environment. In this report, we suggest a data retention system with user identification capabilities in IPv6 as well as in IPv4 network. This is achieved by extending flow records with information obtained by monitoring state of network devices via SNMP and monitoring state of control servers such as Radius. The system has been successfully deployed in BUT network.
IPv4 addresses are still running out. Global IPv4 address pool administered by IANA organization is depleted together with IPv4 pool of APNIC Routing Registry. This situation pushes organizations to think about IPv6 transition. Unfortunately IPv4 and IPv6 are incompatible protocols which raise new security issues and problems with user monitoring and accounting. The article shares experiences of deploying IPv6 on the university campus network and describes the most significant troubles that we have been faced with. It describes and compares differences in first hop security in IPv6 and IPv4 networks. Issues connected with user addressing, accounting and monitoring are also discussed. The experience is mainly based on the deployment of IPv6 on the campus network at Brno University of Technology which is one of the biggest universities in the Czech Republic.
One of the basic requirements of the IPv6 protocol is support for the autoconfiguration of network nodes. This document details the options for autoconfiguration in current operating systems and gives an overview of these options in IPv6 networks.
This document describes network structure, the ways of creating IPv6 addresses in end-user networks, and the methods used to connect home, corporate and campus networks.
Growing number of IPv6 devices in the network would bring new security challenges. Are there any security improvements comparing to IPv4 or IPv6 brings some new security threads. IPv6 have been developed for more than 15 years so far and presentation tries to find the answer if IPv6 cold be … Read More
6to4 (RFC 3056) is a transition mechanism allowing users to communicate with IPv6 enabled sites and services with minimal manual configuration. Globally unique IPv4 address is the only prerequisite. Together with anycast prefix for 6to4 routers (defined in RFC 3068) provides a simple solution, how even an end site can … Read More
New firmware for HP ProCurve switches was released on 15th November 2010. With this step, the manufacturer removed a significant shortcoming of the ProCurve switches – no full support for the IPv6 protocol. Partial IPv6 support was already introduced in earlier versions, but only for device management and filtering (ACL). Version K.15 brings IPv6 routing support in hardware with all features, including support of the OSPFv3 routing protocol. This firmware was released for the L3 switches series 54xx, 81xx – i.e., all switches with the “K” letter in their firmware name. The release number of the new version is 15 (K.15). The current document presents a detailed look at the implementation of IPv6 support. Giving examples, it will be shown that IPv6 configuration is not very complicated. Since for many people practical use of IPv6 is still unknown territory, some differences from IPv4 will be described in more detail below. Management and syntax of IPv6 commands copy the Cisco philosophy to a large degree. Yet, there are some small differences. The procedures below definitely do not represent all IPv6 possibilities in the K.15 firmware or IPv6 configuration possibilities, but are merely a manual to put IPv6 into production on these switches easily and quickly.