IPv6 - Can We Turn the Global Network into a Firewall Protecting All End Users?

One recurring argument against implementing IPv6 in campus networks is the absence of Network Address Translation (NAT). While NAT is perceived as a security mechanism in IPv4, we need to rethink our approach when working with IPv6. Instead of relying on NAT, we can leverage firewalls to safeguard endpoints.

In IPv6, every device receives a routable address. To protect endpoints effectively, we require firewalls to filter unwanted traffic. But what if we could stop such traffic at the source? Could this approach convince more people toward adopting IPv6?

According to RFC 7381: “In a /48 assignment, typical for a site, there are then still 65,535 /64 blocks.” and “All user access networks should be a /64.”

Can we use then bit 63 to convey a message: “I don’t want any incoming traffic initiated towards me!!!”? Of course response would be accepted.

We could divide the /64 allocations into two groups: one for servers, and these accept incoming traffic (bit 63 = 0):

for example 2001:0db8:0000:0000::/64

And the second group: endpoints, these never accept incoming traffic (bit 63 = 1):

for example 2001:0db8:0000:0001::/64

We only need all systems to understand the message. If a router or firewall sees such packet, then drops it. From the obvious reasons it can be applied only for TCP.

Every TCP packet with flag SYN, where destination address (IPv6) has bit 63 equal 1, must be dropped.

I know it increases the consumptions but let me just remind what we have available:

Number of IPv6 addresses: 340.282.366.920.938.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000

Number of people (Jan 2024): 8.019.876.189

Number of IPv6 for each person: 42.429.877.831.239.700.000.000.000.000

Number of IPv4 addresses: 4.294.967.296

Is it realistic or am I dreamer? Can you challenge this idea?

RFC 7381https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7381

NAT IPv6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6-to-IPv6_Network_Prefix_Translation

NAT IPv6 https://blogs.infoblox.com/ipv6-coe/you-thought-there-was-no-nat-for-ipv6-but-nat-still-exists/

What should you know about HA 'override enabled' setting on Fortigate?

High availability is mandatory in most of today's network designs. Only very small companies or branches can run their business without redundancy. When you have Fortigate firewall in your network you have many options to increase network availability. You can use Fortigate Clustering Protocol ( FGCP ) or Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol ( VRRP ). FGCP has two modes: 'override' disabled (default) and 'override' enabled . I'm not going to explain how to set up HA as you can find many resources on Fortinet websites: https://cookbook.fortinet.com/high-availability-two-fortigates-56/ https://cookbook.fortinet.com/high-availability-with-fgcp-56/ Let's recap what is the main difference between them. The default HA setting is 'override' disabled and this is an order of selection an active unit: 1) number of monitored interfaces - when both units have the same number of working (up) interfaces check next parameter 2) HA uptime - an ...

FortiGate and GRE tunnel

Recently I worked on one project where a client requested to re-route web traffic to the GRE tunnel to perform traffic inspection. I would like to share with you what is required if you configure it on FortiGate. We need a new GRE interface and policy base routing (PBR) to change the route for specific source IPs. Of course you need firewall policies to permit the traffic. Let's start with GRE interface. Unfortunately you can't configure it using the GUI, only CLI is the option: config system gre-tunnel edit "gre1" set interface "port1" set local-gw 55.55.55.55 set remote-gw 44.44.44.44 next end When the end peer is Cisco router, you need to set the IP for the GRE interface: config system interface edit gre1 set ip 192.168.10.10 255.255.255.255 set remote-ip192.168.10.20 end In next step we need to fix routing. We need the alternate path via GRE but to keep the route in the active routing table you need to set the same AD (adminis...

Inpection of asymmetric sessions on FortiGate

There is one feature available on FortiGate, and I think you should know it, as it modifies a bit what we know about stateful firewalls. In past every packet was treated individually and you had to create policies in both directions. With stateful firewalls we can track connections, and by checking couple of attributes, we can treat them as part of the same session. For example when you initiate connection from a host1 to host2, the returning connection from host2 to host1 will be treated as part of the same connection (session). They have to have the same source/destination and destination/source IPs, port numbers and interfaces.There is an exception from this rule and FortiGate in some specific cases can accept connections on port which was not used in the initial connection. Let me explain how it works on the below example: The host1 has a default gateway on R1 (10.0.1.2), but you may notice that it is not the optimal path to host2 subnet. When we analyze ...

myITmicroblog

Search This Blog