| Internet-Draft | challenge-icmpv6 | November 2025 |
| Xu, et al. | Expires 7 May 2026 | [Page] |
The Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6 (ICMPv6) is essential for network diagnostics but is vulnerable to off-path spoofing attacks, especially when error messages relate to stateless transport protocols like UDP. An attacker can forge these messages to degrade performance or enable Man-in-the-Middle attacks.¶
This document proposes a robust, stateless challenge-response mechanism to authenticate ICMPv6 error messages. Traditional stateful challenge mechanisms are vulnerable to state-exhaustion Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. To avoid this, the proposed solution is inspired by TCP SYN-Cookies, eliminating the need to store per-challenge state by using cryptographic computation. It limits state management to minimal flags on existing sockets or a bounded probabilistic data structure. This approach effectively authenticates ICMPv6 error messages while inherently resisting both off-path spoofing and state-exhaustion DoS attacks, thus improving the robustness of ICMPv6.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 May 2026.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6 (ICMPv6) serves as the cornerstone of operational signaling in IPv6 networks. It performs critical functions such as Path MTU Discovery [RFC8201], Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861], and reporting errors encountered during packet processing [RFC4443]. However, the legitimate verification of ICMPv6 error messages is inherently vulnerable by design. To enable senders to correlate error reports with the original packets for effective network diagnostics, ICMPv6 error messages, as specified in [RFC4443], MUST include the header information and a portion of the payload of the original message that triggered the error. When the original message originates from stateless protocols like UDP or ICMPv6, the embedded original message header lacks contextual information (e.g., sequence numbers, acknowledgement numbers, and ports in stateful protocols like TCP). This makes it difficult for the receiver to effectively verify the legitimacy of the error messages. Consequently, attackers can forge ICMPv6 error messages embedded with stateless protocol payloads to bypass the legitimate verification of the receiver, tricking the receiver into erroneously accepting and responding to the message, which can lead to malicious activities.¶
For example, off-path attackers can forge ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages, embedding stateless protocols like UDP or ICMP Echo Reply, to lower hosts' Path MTU to the IPv6 minimum of 1280 bytes [RFC8200], disrupting network throughput and latency-sensitive applications like video conferencing. This manipulation also simplifies off-path TCP hijacking [Feng2021]. Additionally, attackers can exploit forged ICMPv6 Redirect messages to tamper with a victim's gateway, enabling Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks. Even with WPA/WPA2/WPA3 security, attackers can impersonate legitimate APs, bypass encryption, and hijack traffic [Feng2023]. These diverse attack vectors starkly underscore the critical and urgent necessity for robust authentication mechanisms in ICMPv6 for error message processing.¶
This document proposes a stateless challenge-confirm mechanism that authenticates these ICMPv6 error messages. The mechanism is designed to prove that the source of an error is on the path of the associated data flow, thwarting off-path attackers without introducing new Denial-of-Service vulnerabilities.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. TCP terminology should be interpreted as described in [RFC9293].¶
Current ICMPv6 specifications have inherent limitations that allow off-path attackers to forge ICMPv6 error messages, undermining network security and reliability. The primary issues are:¶
Certain ICMPv6 error messages, such as Packet Too Big messages, can originate from any intermediate router along the packet's path. This ubiquity makes source-based blocking ineffective, as legitimate messages can come from multiple sources.¶
Although [RFC4443] stipulates that "Every ICMPv6 error message (type < 128) MUST include as much of the IPv6 offending (invoking) packet (the packet that caused the error) as possible without making the error message packet exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU", the inherent characteristics of the embedded packet protocol directly influence the difficulty of authenticating ICMPv6 error messages and their overall security strength.¶
When attackers embed stateful protocol packets, such as TCP segments, in forged ICMPv6 error messages, receivers can theoretically utilize the inherent state information of the TCP protocol for a certain degree of verification. The TCP protocol establishes and maintains state between communicating parties through sequence numbers, acknowledgment numbers, and ports. These connection-based TCP state information are difficult for attackers to accurately guess. Receivers can attempt to verify whether these connection-specific secret information in the embedded TCP header matches their maintained TCP connection state, thereby judging the authenticity of the ICMPv6 error message [RFC5927].¶
In contrast to stateful TCP, when attackers embed stateless protocol packets, such as UDP or ICMPv6 messages, in forged ICMPv6 error messages, receivers lose the ability to perform effective state verification. UDP and ICMPv6 protocols are inherently designed as stateless protocols, where the source does not maintain any session state information. The UDP or ICMPv6 messages embedded in ICMPv6 error messages contain almost no state information that can be used for context verification. In addition to performing some basic protocol format checks, receivers have virtually no way to determine the authenticity of ICMPv6 error messages based on the embedded stateless packet header. This lack of state verification greatly reduces the authentication strength of ICMPv6 error messages, making it easier for attackers to implement authentication evasion and use forged error messages for malicious attacks.¶
A simple stateful challenge-response mechanism, where a host stores a nonce while waiting for a confirmation, would introduce a critical state-exhaustion Denial-of-Service (DoS) vulnerability. An attacker could flood a target with forged error messages, forcing it to allocate state for each one. To solve this, the mechanism proposed here is stateless and inspired by TCP SYN-Cookies [RFC4987], where state is not stored but is instead encoded cryptographically and later re-computed for validation.¶
Instead of generating and storing a random nonce, the host computes a deterministic nonce on demand. This nonce is a cryptographic hash of information that defines the flow, combined with a secret key known only to the host.¶
Challenge Nonce = F(secret_key, src_IP, dest_IP, [other_flow_info])¶
secret_key: A high-entropy secret value held by the host's operating system. This key MUST be rotated periodically (e.g., every few minutes) to limit the impact of any potential key compromise and to mitigate replay attacks.¶
F: A keyed-hash function, such as HMAC-SHA256, truncated to the size of the nonce field.¶
With this approach, a nonce can be generated when needed (for an outgoing challenge) and verified later (on a returning confirmation) by simply re-computing it. There is no need to store it in a cache.¶
The stateless process is as follows:¶
Receive and Validate Error: Host A receives an ICMPv6 error message. It first validates the embedded header's 4-tuple against its list of active sockets/connections. If no matching socket exists, the message is silently discarded. No state is created.¶
Mark Flow for Challenge: If a matching socket is found, Host A does not create new state. Instead, it sets a simple flag on the existing socket control block, marking it as "requires challenge". The initial ICMPv6 error is then discarded.¶
Issue Computed Challenge: The next time the application sends a packet on this marked socket, the networking stack intercepts it. It computes the challenge nonce using the secret key and the packet's flow information. This nonce is placed in a Challenge-Confirm IPv6 Destination Option, and the packet is sent.¶
Receive and Verify Confirmation: If a legitimate on-path node returns a new ICMPv6 error, it will contain the challenge packet. Host A receives this new error, extracts the embedded nonce, and recomputes the expected nonce using the same secret key and flow information.¶
Process or Discard: If the received nonce matches the re-computed one, the error is authentic, and Host A can act on it. If it does not match, the message is a forgery or is stale, and it is discarded.¶
This flow achieves the anti-spoofing goal without creating state for unverified messages, thus defeating potential DoS attacks. Figure 1 illustrates the complete interaction.¶
Host A On-Path Router R | | |--------[ Original UDP Packet ]---------->| | X (Error, MTU exceeded) |<--[ 1. ICMPv6 Error (Original) ]---------| | | | [Internal Action on Host A:] | | - Validate 4-tuple -> OK | | - Mark socket for challenge | | - Discard original error msg | | (No per-challenge state is stored) | | | |--------[ 2. Next UDP Packet + ]--------->| | [ Challenge Option (Nonce N) ] | | (Nonce N computed on-the-fly) | | | | X (Same error condition) |<--[ 3. New ICMPv6 Error (contains N) ]---| | | | [Internal Action on Host A:] | | - Extract received Nonce N | | - Re-compute expected Nonce N' | | - IF (N == N') THEN: | | Process error (SUCCESS) | | ELSE: | | Discard message (FAILURE) | | | Figure 1: Challenge-Confirm Mechanism¶
The mechanism for "marking a flow" is lightweight and transport-specific.¶
UDP: Upon receiving a validatable ICMPv6 error, the host sets a flag on the corresponding UDP socket's control block.¶
TCP: While TCP has its own protections, this mechanism can supplement it. A flag can be set on the TCB.¶
ICMP: For connectionless protocols like ICMP Echo, which lack a socket state, a probabilistic, fixed-size data structure like a Sketch or Bloom Filter should be used. On Error Reception: The host hashes a flow identifier (e.g., source IP, destination IP, ICMPv6 Identifier) and increments the corresponding counter(s) in the sketch. On Packet Transmission: When sending a new ICMPv6 packet, the host queries the sketch. If the query indicates this flow has likely received a recent error, it attaches the computed challenge. This probabilistic approach ensures that state remains bounded, preventing DoS attacks against ICMP-based applications.¶
To support the Challenge-Confirm mechanism, this document defines a new Challenge-Confirm Option. The challenge packet for a received ICMPv6 error message containing a stateless protocol payload includes the following option (as shown in Figure 2) in the IPv6 header. Similarly, the ICMPv6 error message triggered in response to this challenge packet should also include the same option in the header of the embedded IPv6 challenge packet (as shown in Figure 3).¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Opt Data Len | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Challenge Nonce (128 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Stateless Protocol Data (UDP/ICMP packet) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
Figure 2: The IPv6 Challenge Packet with Challenge-Confirm Option¶
The fields in the Challenge-Confirm Option are defined as follows:¶
Option Type: 8-bit identifier for the challenge-confirm option. The final value requires IANA assignment.¶
Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer specifying the length of the option data field in bytes.¶
Reserved: 16-bit field reserved for future use. MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on reception.¶
Challenge Nonce: 128-bit random number computed.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Code | Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MTU / Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Opt Data Len | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Challenge Nonce (128 bits) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | Stateless Protocol Data (UDP/ICMP packet) | | (Variable Length) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: New ICMPv6 Error Responding to the Challenge Packet¶
The proposed mechanism is inherently resilient to packet loss due to its stateless design. It does not maintain timers or retransmission states for the challenge-confirm exchange itself. The requires challenge flag is cleared as soon as the challenge packet is transmitted, meaning the host does not enter a state of "waiting for a confirmation".¶
Whether the outgoing challenge packet or the returning ICMP confirmation is lost in transit, the outcome is the same: the host that issued the challenge does not receive a confirmation and takes no special action. The exchange silently fails.¶
Recovery is not driven by a timer, but by the persistence of the underlying network issue. If the condition that caused the initial ICMP error persists, a subsequent data packet from the application will likely trigger a new, initial ICMP error, naturally restarting the challenge process. This "fire-and-forget" approach avoids adding stateful complexity for the challenge itself.¶
The mechanism's performance, but not its security, can be affected in networks that employ per-packet load balancing across multiple paths. Consider a scenario where a flow's packets alternate between a "bad" path that triggers an ICMPv6 error and a "good" path that does not.¶
A recurring cycle could emerge:
1. A data packet is routed to the "bad" path, triggering an initial ICMPv6 error and causing the host to set the requires challenge flag.
2. The next packet (now a challenge packet) is routed to the "good" path and reaches its destination successfully. No ICMPv6 confirmation is returned.
3. The host, having sent its challenge, clears the flag. The next data packet is a normal packet, which is again routed to the "bad" path, restarting the cycle.¶
This cycle does not compromise the security of the mechanism. The host never acts on an unvalidated ICMPv6 error, so spoofing attacks remain ineffective. However, it creates a performance degradation. In this specific scenario, the effective throughput for the flow could be halved. This is a performance cost in certain network topologies, not a security vulnerability.¶
The proposed enhancements aim to bolster ICMPv6 security by addressing specific vulnerabilities related to message authentication. Key security aspects include:¶
Authentication Strength: The security of the authentication depends on the unguessability of the computed nonce, which is guaranteed by the use of a strong keyed-hash function and a secret key with sufficient entropy [RFC4086].¶
Denial of Service (DoS) Resistance: This is the principal security advantage over stateful designs. The mechanism is resilient to state-exhaustion attacks because: 1. It creates no state for ICMPv6 errors that do not correspond to an existing, active transport-layer socket. 2. For valid flows, the state added is minimal (a flag) or probabilistically bounded (a sketch), preventing uncontrolled resource consumption.¶
Replay Attack Mitigation: The periodic rotation of the secret_key provides the primary defense against replay attacks. A captured nonce-confirmation pair will become invalid after the key is changed. The rotation interval presents a trade-off between security and the maximum legitimate round-trip time for a challenge-confirm exchange.¶
Reflection and Amplification Attacks: The mechanism is designed to be immune to reflection and amplification attacks. An attacker cannot use this protocol to turn a victim into a traffic amplifier. The critical design choice preventing this is that the receipt of an initial, unverified ICMPv6 error message does NOT trigger the immediate transmission of a new packet. Instead, the host's response is limited to two low-cost internal actions: silently discarding the incoming message and setting a lightweight flag on an existing socket's control block. The challenge packet itself is not a new, separately generated packet; it is the next application packet for that flow, modified on-the-fly to include the Challenge-Confirm option. Therefore, an attacker sending a flood of forged ICMPv6 messages cannot compel the target to generate any network traffic beyond what its applications would have sent anyway. The victim does not become a reflector.¶
Backward Compatibility: The mechanism is fully backward-compatible. Hosts not implementing this specification will ignore the Destination Option as per [RFC8200]. Intermediate routers are unaffected. Only end hosts wishing to enhance their security need to implement the changes.¶
The Challenge-Confirm Option Type should be assigned in IANA's "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry [RFC2780].¶
This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/).¶
| Hex Value | Binary Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| act chg rest | |||
| TBD | 00 0 - | This draft |
The authors would like to thank the IETF community, particularly members of the INT-AREA working groups, for their valuable feedback and insights during the development of this proposal.¶