Here comes a small lab consisting of three Cisco routers in which I used OSPFv3 for IPv6 with IPsec authentication. I am listing the configuration commands and some show commands. Furthermore, I am publishing a pcapng file so that you can have a look at it with Wireshark by yourself.
I already had an OSPFv2 for IPv4 lab on my blog. However, I missed capturing a pcap file in order to publish it. So, here it is. Feel free to have a look at another small lab with three Cisco routers and OSPFv2. Just another pcapng file to practise some protocol and Wireshark skills.
For those who are interested in analyzing basic BGP messages: I have a trace file for you. ;) It consists of two session establishments as I cleared the complete BGP session on two involved routers for it. Refer to my previous blogpost for details about the lab, that is: MP-BGP with IPv6 and legacy IP, neighboring via both protocols as well, with and without password. The involved routers were 2x Cisco routers, one Palo Alto Networks firewall, and one Fortinet FortiGate firewall.
While playing around in my lab learning BGP I configured iBGP with Multiprotocol Extensions (exchanging routing information for IPv6 and legacy IP) between two Cisco routers, a Palo Alto Networks firewall, and a Fortinet FortiGate firewall. Following are all configuration steps from their GUI (Palo) as well as their CLIs (Cisco, Fortinet). It’s just a “basic” lab because I did not configure any possible parameter such as local preference or MED but left almost all to its defaults, except neighboring from loopbacks, password authentication and next-hop-self.
If you have ever read some docs or RFCs about IPv6 you should be quite familiar with the 2001:db8::/32 “IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation”, RFC 3849. This RFC clearly states how you should handle addresses within this range: “This assignment implies that IPv6 network operators should add this address prefix to the list of non-routeable IPv6 address space, and if packet filters are deployed, then this address prefix should be added to packet filters.”
I was interested whether those addresses are actually used in the Internet. For this purpose I analyzed my firewall logs for 6 months to get an idea. Though it was not that much, I actually got a couple of connections inbound and outbound (!) sourced or destined to those reserved IPv6 addresses.
While there are many approaches on how to structure your IPv6 prefix into /64 subnets (blogposts, books, talks) there are only a few hints what you can do with the other 64 bits of the addresses, namely the IPv6 interface identifier or IID. To my mind you can put some (but not too much) logic into those IIDs to a) have some structure for your addresses that b) helps you identifying those addresses when seeing them in logs or anywhere else. Hence it is easier for you to remember the IPv6 address behind a name (forward DNS) as well as the host when seeing the address (reverse DNS).
This post just shows the approach I am using in my lab. You might find it useful or you might disagree completely. Anyhow, feel free to comment your experiences or solutions for that. :D I am wondering why there isn’t much discussion about these IIDs at all. Maybe for some good reasons I am not seeing yet?
If you’re following my blog you probably know that I am using IPv6 everywhere. Everything in my lab is dual-stacked if not already IPv6-only. Great so far.
A few months ago my lab moved to another ISP which required to change all IP addresses (since I don’t have PI space yet). Oh boy! While it was almost no problem to change the legacy IPv4 addresses (only a few NATs), it was a huge pain in the … to change the complete infrastructure with its global unicast IPv6 addresses. It turned out that changing the interface IPv6 addresses was merely the first step, while many modifications at different services were the actual problem. And this was *only* my lab and not a complex company or the like.
Following you find a list of changes I made for IPv6 and for legacy IP. Just an overview to get an idea of differences and stumbling blocks.
Some time ago I published a pcap that can be used to study basic IPv6 protocol messages such as ICMPv6 for Router Advertisements, Neighbor Solicitations, etc.: “Basic IPv6 Messages: Wireshark Capture“. You can use it to learn the basic IPv6 address assignment and layer 2 address resolution. However, that pcap does not include any upper layer protocols.
This time I captured a few application layer protocols that I used over IPv6 rather than over legacy IP. Common user protocols such as DNS, HTTP/S, IMAP, SMTP, as well as some network administration protocols: SSH, SNMP, and Ping. It is not that interesting at all ;) though you can use it to have some examples for Wireshark to prove that those application protocols are almost the same when run above IPv6 compared to IPv4.
Zum wiederholten Mal habe ich es getan: Ich war zwei Wochen mit der Familie im Urlaub – und zwar ohne Smartphone, ohne Tablet, ohne Notebook, ohne Fernseher. Offline! So ganz. 14 Tage lang. Und das war auch gut so. Urlaub eben.
Also zumindest so, wie ich es wirklich als Urlaub wahrnehme. Und meiner Meinung nach auch die einzige Möglichkeit, in unserer heutigen Zeit wenigstens einmal im Jahr ganz abzuschalten.
It is widely believed that public/private keys or certificates are “more secure” than passwords. E.g., an SSH login via key rather than using a password. Or a site-to-site VPN with certificate authentication rather than a pre-shared key (PSK). However, even certificates and private keys are not unlimited secure. They can be compromised, too, since the public-key cryptography only implies that private keys won’t be exposed if a brute-force attack is nearly impossible.
So, what’s the real security level of passwords compared to public keys/certificates?
There are two methods of site-to-site VPN tunnels: route-based and policy-based. While some of you may already be familiar with this, some may have never heard of it. Some firewalls only implement one of these types, so you probably don’t have a chance to configure the other one anyway. Too bad since route-based VPNs have many advantages over policy-based ones which I will highlight here.
I had many situations in which network admins did not know the differences between those two methods and simply configured “some kind of” VPN tunnel regardless of any methodology. In this blogpost I am explaining the structural differences between them along with screenshots of common firewalls. I am explaining all advantages of route-based VPNs and listing a table comparing some firewalls regarding their VPN features.
In some situations you want to manage your firewall only from a dedicated management network and not through any of the data interfaces. For example, when you’re running an internal data center with no Internet access at all but your firewalls must still be able to get updates from the Internet. In those situations you need a real out-of-band (OoB) management interface from which all management traffic (DNS, NTP, Syslog, Updates, RADIUS, …) is sourced and to which the admins can connect to via SSH/HTTPS. Another example is a distinct separation of data and management traffic. For example, some customers want any kind of management traffic to traverse through some other routing/firewall devices than their production traffic.
Unfortunately the Fortinet FortiGate firewalls don’t have a reasonable management port. Their so-called “MGMT” port is only able to limit the access of incoming traffic but is not able to source outgoing traffic by default. Furthermore, in an HA environment you need multiple ports to access the firewalls independently. What a mess.
A functional workaround is to add another VDOM solely for management. From this VDOM, all management traffic is sourced. To have access to all firewalls in a high availability environment, a second (!) interface within this management VDOM is necessary. Here we go:
We needed to configure the Internet-facing firewall for a customer to block encrypted files such as protected PDF, ZIP, or Microsoft Office documents. We tested it with two next-generation firewalls, namely Fortinet FortiGate and Palo Alto Networks. The experiences were quite different…
I came across some strange behaviors on a Palo Alto Networks firewall: Certain TLS connections with TLS inspection enabled did not work. Looking at the traffic log the connections revealed an Action of “allow” but of Type “deny” with Session End Reason of “policy-deny”. What?
Just a quick note concerning the session sync on a Palo Alto Networks firewall cluster: Don’t trust the green HA2 bubble on the HA widget since it is always “Up” as long as the HA interface is up. It does NOT indicate whether the session sync is working or not. You MUST verify the session count on the passive unit to be sure. Here are some details: