[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6302

Internet Engineering Task Force                                A. Durand
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: BCP                                        I. Gashinsky
Expires: July 23, 2011                                       Yahoo! Inc.
                                                                  D. Lee
                                                          Facebook, Inc.
                                                             S. Sheppard
                                                                ATT Labs
                                                        January 19, 2011


          Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers
          draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02

Abstract

   In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing
   techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log
   port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP
   address.

Status of this Memo

   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 http://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 July 23, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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



Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Internet facing server logging         January 2011


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  ISP Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.2.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


































Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Internet facing server logging         January 2011


1.  Introduction

   According to the most recent predictions, the global IPv4 address
   free pool at IANA will exhaust sometime in 2011.  After that, service
   providers will have a hard time finding enough IPv4 global addresses
   to sustain product and subscriber growth.  Due to the huge global
   existing infrastructure, both hardware and software, vendors and
   service providers must continue to support IPv4 technologies for the
   foreseeable future.  As legacy applications and hardware are retired
   the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a years long perhaps
   decades long process.

   To maintain legacy IPv4 address support, service providers will have
   little choice but to share IPv4 global addresses among multiple
   customers.  Techniques to do so are outside of the scope of this
   documents.  All include some form of address translation/address
   sharing, being NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite.

   The effects on the Internet of the introduction of those address
   sharing techniques have been documented in
   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues].

   Address sharing techniques come with their own logging infrastructure
   to track the relation between which original IP address and source
   port(s) were associated with which user and external IPv4 address at
   any given point in time.  In the past to support abuse mitigation or
   public safety requests, the knowledge of the external global IP
   address was enough to identify a subscriber of interest.  With
   address sharing technologies, only providing information about the
   external public address associated with a session to a service
   provider is no longer sufficient information to unambiguously
   identify customers.

   Note: this document provides recommendations for Internet facing
   servers logging incoming connections.  It does not provide any
   recommendations about logging on carrier-grade NAT or other address
   sharing tools.


2.  Recommendations

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   It is RECOMMENDED as best current practice that Internet facing
   servers logging incoming IP addresses also log:




Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Internet facing server logging         January 2011


   o  The source port number.

   o  A timestamp, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate to the second, from a
      traceable time source (e.g.  NTP).

   o  The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port
      number, when the server application is defined to use multiple
      transports or multiple ports.

   Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle
   ports, some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost
   immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port
   ready for reuse.  As a result, servers have no idea how fast the
   ports will be reused and, thus, should log timestamps using a
   reasonably accurate clock.  At this point the RECOMMENDED accuracy
   for timestamps is to the second or better.  Representation of
   timestamps in UTC is preffered to localtime with UTC-offset or time
   zone as this extra information can be lost in the reporting chain.

   Examples of Internet facing servers include, but are not limited to,
   web servers and email servers.

   Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not
   immediately foreseen in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both
   IPv4 and IPv6, if only for consistency and code simplification
   reasons.

   Discussions about data retention policies are out of scope for this
   document.

   The above recommendations also applies to devices such as load-
   balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers.


3.  ISP Considerations

   ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a
   corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the
   relation between a customer's identity and IP/port resources
   utilized.  However, recommendations on this topic are out of scope
   for this document.


4.  IANA Considerations

   None.





Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Internet facing server logging         January 2011


5.  Security Considerations

   In the absence of source port number and accurate timestamp,
   operators deploying any address sharing techniques will not be able
   to identify unambiguously customers when dealing with abuse or public
   safety queries.


6.  References

6.1.  Normative references

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

6.2.  Informative references

   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
              Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
              draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in
              progress), October 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Alain Durand
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089-1206
   USA

   Email: adurand@juniper.net


   Igor Gashinsky
   Yahoo! Inc.
   45 West 18th St.
   New York, NY  10011
   USA

   Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com









Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Internet facing server logging         January 2011


   Donn Lee
   Facebook, Inc.
   1601 S. California Ave.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   USA

   Email: donn@fb.com


   Scott Sheppard
   ATT Labs
   575 Morosgo Ave, 4d57
   Atlanta, GA  30324
   USA

   Email: Scott.Sheppard@att.com



































Durand, et al.            Expires July 23, 2011                 [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/