After I have done some speedtests on the FortiGate firewall I was interested in doing the same tests on a Palo Alto. That is: What are the throughput differences of IPv4 vs. IPv6, measured with and without security profiles, i.e., with and without threat prevention.
It turned out that the throughput is much higher than the official information from Palo Alto. Furthermore, I was not able to test the threat prevention at all, because non of my traffic (Iperf and mere HTTP) went through the antivirus engines. I have to test this again. However, here are the measured values so far:
Continue reading Palo Alto IPv4 vs. IPv6 Performance Speedtests
The most common transition method for IPv6 (that is: how to enable IPv6 on a network that does not have a native IPv6 connection to the Internet) is a “6in4” tunnel. Other tunneling methods such as Teredo or SixXS are found on different literatures as well. However, another method that is not often explained is to tunnel the IPv6 packets through a normal VPN connection. For example, if the main office has a native IPv6 connection to the Internet as well as VPN connections to its remote offices, it is easy to bring IPv6 subnets to these stations. Here comes an example with two Palo Alto firewalls.
Continue reading IPv6 through IPv4 VPN Tunnel with Palo Alto
I was interested in the performance of my FortiGate firewall when comparing IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. Therefore I built a small lab consisting a FortiWiFi 90D firewall and two Linux clients running Iperf. I tested the network throughput for both Internet Protocols in both directions within three scenarios: 1) both clients plugged into the same “hardware switch” on the FortiGate, 2) different subnets with an “allow any any” policy without any further security profiles, and finally, 3) activating antivirus, application control, IPS, and SSL inspection.
Continue reading FortiGate IPv4 vs. IPv6 Performance Speedtests
It’s really great that the FortiGate firewalls have a DHCPv6 server implemented. With this mandatory service, IPv6-only networks can be deployed directly behind a FortiGate because the stateless DHCPv6 server provides the DNS server addresses. (This is unlike Palo Alto or Cisco which have no DHCPv6 server implemented.)
However, the configuration on the FortiGate is really bad because nothing of the IPv6 features can be set via the GUI. (And this is called a Next-Generation Firewall? Not only the features count, but also the usability!) Everything must be done through the CLI which is sometimes hard to remember. Therefore I am publishing this memo of the appropriate CLI configuration commands.
Continue reading Basic IPv6 Configuration on a FortiGate Firewall
I am lucky to have a full dual-stack ISP connection at home. However, the ISP only offers a dynamic IPv6 prefix with all of its disadvantages (while no single advantage). In this post, I am summarizing the limitations of a dynamic prefix and some of the ideas on how to overcome them. I am always comparing the “IPv6 dynamic prefix” state with the legacy “dynamic IPv4 address” situation. I suppose that some of these problems will hit many small office / home office locations during the next years.
Of course, IPv6 ISP connections with dynamic prefixes should only be purchased at private home sites. It is no problem to have new IPv6 addresses there because all connections are outbound. However, many small remote offices (SOHO) might rely on such cheap ISP connections, too. If they provide some servers in a DMZ or other components such as network cameras, building components with IPv6 connections, etc., they will run into these kind of problems. (The remote office could even tunnel every outbound IPv6 traffic through a VPN to the headquarter. But if it wants to use a local breakout, this won’t be an alternative.)
Continue reading IPv6 Dyn Prefix Problems
How to route traffic inside an IPv6 site-to-site VPN tunnel if one side offers only dynamic IPv6 prefixes? With IPv4, the private network segments were statically routed through the tunnel. But with a dynamic prefix, a static route is not possible. That is, a dynamic routing protocol must be used. Here is an example of how I used OSPFv3 for IPv6 between my VPN endpoints.
In detail, I have a home office with a dual stack ISP connection. However, this connection has a dynamic IPv6 prefix: After every reboot or lost connection of the firewall, I get a new IPv6 prefix. This is really bad for building a site-to-site VPN to the headquarter. Since I don’t want to use any kind of NAT/NPTv6 with unique local addresses, I am talking OSPFv3 over the VPN tunnel in order to route the dynamic prefix range (global unicast) via the tunnel.
Continue reading IPv6 VPN Routing with Dynamic Prefixes
The Juniper ScreenOS firewall is one of the seldom firewalls that implements DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD). It therefore fits for testing my dual stack ISP connection from Deutsche Telekom, Germany. (Refer to this post for details about this dual stack procedure.)
It was *really* hard to get the correct configuration in place. I was not able to do this by myself at all. Also Google did not help that much. Finally, I opened a case by Juniper to help me finding the configuration error. After four weeks of the opened case, I was told which command was wrong. Now it’s working. 😉 Here we go.
Continue reading Juniper ScreenOS: DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
With global IPv6 routing, every single host has its own global unicast IPv6 address (GUA). No NAT anymore. No dirty tricks between hosts and routers. Great. Security is made merely by firewalls and policies. Site-to-site VPNs between partners can be build without address conflicts. Great again!
However, one problem to consider is the proper IPv6 routing via site-to-site VPNs since both sides now can reach each other even without a VPN. This was (mostly) not true with IPv4 in which both partners heavily relied on private RFC 1918 addresses that were not routable in the Internet. If specific IPv6 traffic should flow through a VPN but does actually traverse the Internet, it would be easy for a hacker to eavesdrop this traffic, leading to a security issue!
The following principles should be realized properly to assure that IPv6 traffic is never routed through the mere Internet when a site-to-site VPN tunnel is in place. Even in a failure of that tunnel. The principles can be applied to any IPv6 tunnels between partners, remote sites, home offices, etc., as long as the other site has its own global unicast IPv6 address space. (For VPNs in which a sub-prefix from the headquarters prefix is routed to a remote site, the situation behaves different. This article focuses on the routing between different IPv6 adress spaces.)
Continue reading IPv6 Site-to-Site VPN Recommendations
Similar to my test lab for OSPFv2, I am testing OSPFv3 for IPv6 with the following devices: Cisco ASA, Cisco Router, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SSG, Palo Alto, and Quagga Router. I am showing my lab network diagram and the configuration commands/screenshots for all devices. Furthermore, I am listing some basic troubleshooting commands. In the last section, I provide a Tcpdump/Wireshark capture of an initial OSPFv3 run.
I am not going into deep details of OSPFv3 at all. But this lab should give basic hints/examples for configuring OSPFv3 for all of the listed devices.
Continue reading OSPFv3 for IPv6 Lab: Cisco, Fortinet, Juniper, Palo Alto, Quagga
Bis neulich hatte ich einen normalen DSL-Anschluss von 1&1: Per PPPoE eingewählt und eine IPv4-Adresse bekommen – fertig. Das kann neben der FRITZ!Box natürlich auch jeder vernünftige Router oder Firewall.
Jetzt habe ich endlich einen richtigen Dual-Stack (IPv4 und IPv6) Anschluss der Telekom (Glasfaser “MagentaZuhause M” ohne Fernsehen, siehe hier). Juchu! 😉 Bevor ich jedoch den mitgelieferten Speedport durch diverse andere Testgeräte ersetze, wollte ich mal vernünftig mitschneiden, welche Protokolle denn bei einem Verbindungsaufbau genau eingesetzt werden. Vor allem die Prefix Delegation über DHCPv6 interessierte mich…
Continue reading Telekom Dual-Stack Verbindungsaufbau
When explaining IPv6 I am always showing a few Wireshark screenshots to give a feeling on how IPv6 looks like. Basically the stateless autoconfiguration feature (SLAAC), DHCPv6, Neighbor Discovery, and a simple ping should be seen/understood by any network administrator before using the new protocol.
Therefore I captured the basic IPv6 autoconfiguration with a Knoppix Linux behind a Telekom Speedport router (German ISP, dual-stack) and publish this capture file here. I am using this capture to explain the basic IPv6 features.
Continue reading Basic IPv6 Messages: Wireshark Capture
Seit wenigen Tagen bin ich glücklicher Kunde eines Telekom Glasfaseranschlusses. Mit satten 50/10 MBit/s rasen die Daten bei mir ein und aus. Neben der deutlich höheren Geschwindigkeit war ich aber auch an den Latenzen der beiden Anschlüsse interessiert und habe entsprechende Tests gemacht. Hier kommen die Ergebnisse.
Continue reading Ping Times/Latency: DSL vs. Glasfaser, IPv4 vs. IPv6
The most common transition method for IPv6 (that is: how to enable IPv6 on a network that does not have a native IPv6 connection to the Internet) is a “6in4” tunnel. Even other tunneling methods such as Teredo or SixXS are found on different literatures. However, another method that is not often explained is to tunnel the IPv6 packets through a VPN connection. For example, if the main office has a native IPv6 connection to the Internet, as well as VPN connections to its remote offices, it is easy to bring IPv6 subnets to these stations.
Here is how I did it with some Juniper SSG firewalls:
Continue reading IPv6 through IPv4 VPN Tunnel with Juniper SSGs
Since IPv6 gets more and more important, I am using it by default on all my test firewalls, which of course support IPv6. However, when comparing the different functions and administration capabilities, they vary significantly.
Here comes my short evaluation of the IPv6 functions on the following four firewalls: Cisco ASA, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SSG, and Palo Alto.
Continue reading Firewall IPv6 Capabilities: Cisco, Forti, Juniper, Palo
For dynamic IPv4 addresses, dynamic DNS services such as Dyn or No-IP are well-known. If an ISP issues a single dynamic IPv4 address every 24 hours (or the like), the router or any other device registers the IPv4 address for a DNS record. With port-forwardings on the router, several services on different clients can be accessed.
Since there are some ISPs that offer dynamic IPv6 prefixes as well, I have a suggestion on how to optimize the “dynamic DNS” service for several IPv6 addresses and names. The main idea is to update only the IPv6 prefix, while the host IDs are static configured on the DNS server. This limits the DNS updates and expands the usage of DNS names even for devices that have no “DynDNS update client” built-in.
Continue reading Idea: IPv6 Dynamic Prefix