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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7768

Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance                     T. Tsou
Internet-Draft                                 Huawei Technologies (USA)
Intended status: Informational                                     W. Li
Expires: November 11, 2013                                 China Telecom
                                                               T. Taylor
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            May 10, 2013


         Port Management To Reduce Logging In Large-Scale NATs
                draft-tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction-03

Abstract

   Various IPv6 transition strategies require the introduction of large-
   scale NATs (e.g.  AFTR, NAT64) to share the limited supply of IPv4
   addresses available in the network until transition is complete.
   There has recently been debate over how to manage the sharing of
   ports between different subscribers sharing the same IPv4 address.
   One factor in the discussion is the operational requirement to log
   the assignment of transport addresses to subscribers.  It has been
   argued that dynamic assignment of individual ports between
   subscribers requires the generation of an excessive volume of logs.
   This document suggests a way to achieve dynamic port sharing while
   keeping log volumes low.

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 November 11, 2013.









Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  A Suggested Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Issues Of Traceability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Appendix A: Configure Server Software to Log Source Port  . .   7
     8.1.  Apache  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Postfix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.3.  Sendmail  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.4.  sshd  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.5.  Cyrus IMAP and UW IMAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   During the IPv6 transition period, some large-scale NAT devices may
   be introduced, e.g.  DS-Lite AFTR, NAT64.  When a NAT device needs to
   set up a new connection for a given internal address behind the NAT,
   it needs to create a new mapping entry for the new connection, which
   will contain source IP address, source port, converted source IP
   address, converted source port, protocol (TCP/UDP), etc.  If the
   connection is ICMP, a mapping entry may include source IP address,
   converted source IP address, source identifier, converted source
   identifier, etc.




Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   For the purpose of troubleshooting, and also as required by
   regulations, operators must keep logs of network NAT mapping entries
   for a period of time, e.g.  6 months or one year [RFC6269], so the
   NAT device needs to generate logs for mapping entries in addition to
   other information.  A traditional method is to generate a log for
   each mapping entry.  When a connection expires, the mapping entry
   will be deleted, and the corresponding log is stored locally or sent
   to a log storage server.

   Some high performance NAT devices may need to create a large amount
   of new sessions per second.  If logs are generated for each mapping
   entry, the log traffic could reach tens of megabytes per second or
   more, which would be a problem for log generation, transmission and
   storage.

   [I-D.behave-lsn-requirements], REQ-13, REQ-14, and REQ-15 deal
   explicitly with port allocation schemes.  However, it is recognized
   that these are conflicting requirements, requiring a tradeoff between
   the efficiency with which ports are used and the rate of generation
   of log records.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   This draft includes no requirements language.

2.  A Suggested Solution

   We propose a solution that allows dynamic sharing of port ranges
   between users while minimizing the number of logs that have to be
   generated.  Briefly, ports are allocated to the user in blocks.  Logs
   are generated only when blocks are allocated or deallocated.  This
   provides the necessary traceability while reducing log generation by
   a factor equal to the block size, as compared with fully dynamic port
   allocation.

   Here is how the proposal would work in greater detail.  When the user
   sends out the first packet, a port resource pool is allocated for the
   user, e.g.  assign ports 2001~2300 of a public IP address to the
   user's resource pool.  Only one log should be generated for this port
   block.  When the NAT needs to set up a new mapping entry for the
   user, it can use a port in the user's resource pool and the
   corresponding public IP address.  If the user needs more port
   resources, the NAT can allocate another port block, ports 3501~3800,
   to the user's resource pool.  Again , just one log needs to be
   generated for this port block.  A log may contain the following
   information: source IP address, converted source IP address, port
   range, start time, end time, and some other necessary information.




Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   There is an alternative way of allocating port blocks
   [I-D.bajko-pripaddrassign].  The ports in a block do not have to be
   contiguous.  Due to security concerns, the port numbers could be
   worked out using some random algorithm along with some initial
   parameters.  The randomization algorithm would be applied at the NAT
   when it generates a new mapping.  The algorithm and initial
   parameters together are required to define a discrete subset of the
   entire available port range (1024 to 65335), such that it is possible
   to assign the complete range to different internal addresses as
   required by varying the initial parameters.  When generating a log
   message, these parameters instead of the upper and lower bounds of a
   port range would be included in the log.

   Suppose now that a given internal address has been assigned more than
   one block of ports.  Regardless of whether the ports within a block
   are specified by a simple range or a random algorithm, it is clear
   that the overall preference for port randomization will be better
   achieved by spreading out new port assignments over all of the blocks
   assigned to that internal address.  That means that the NAT should
   first select one of the assigned blocks pseudo-randomly before
   applying any randomization algorithm within the block.  Further
   discussion of this point occurs below as part of the discussion of
   block deallocation.

   The individual sessions using ports within a port block will start
   and end at different times.  If no ports in some port block are used
   for some configurable time, the NAT can remove the port block from
   the resource pool allocated to a given internal address, and make it
   available for other users.  The deallocation may be logged when it
   occurs, although some would view such logging as redundant.

   The deallocation procedure presents a number of difficulties in
   practice.  The first problem is the choice of timeout value for the
   block.  If idle timers are applied for the individual mappings
   (sessions) within the block, and these conform to the recommendations
   for NAT behaviour for the protocol concerned, then the additional
   time that might be configured as a guard for the block as a whole
   need not be more than a few minutes.  The block timer in this case
   serves only as a slightly more conservative extension of the
   individual session idle timers.  If, instead, a single idle timer is
   used for the whole block, it must itself conform to the
   recommendations for the protocol with which that block of ports is
   associated.  For example, REQ-5 of [RFC5382] requires an idle timer
   expiry duration of at least 2 hours and 4 minutes for TCP.

   The next issue with port block deallocation is the conflict between
   the desire to randomize port allocation and the desire to make unused
   resources available to other internal addresses.  As mentioned above,



Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   ideally port selection will take place over the entire set of blocks
   allocated to the internal address.  However, taken to its fullest
   extent, such a policy will minimize the probability that all ports in
   any given block are idle long enough for it to be released.

   As an alternative, it is suggested that when choosing which block to
   select a port from, the NAT should omit from its range of choice the
   block that has been idle the longest, unless no ports are available
   in any of the other blocks.  The expression "block that has been idle
   the longest" designates the block in which the time since the last
   packet was observed in any of its sessions, in either direction, is
   earlier than the corresponding time in any of the other blocks
   assigned to that internal address.  As [RFC6269] points out, port
   randomization is just one security measure of several, and the loss
   of randomness incurred by the suggested procedure is justified by the
   increased utilization of port resources it allows.

3.  Issues Of Traceability

   The whole point of this proposal is to allow the NAT to support
   regulatory requirements for traceability of usage.  So it is only
   right to verify that these requirements can be met with the proposal
   made in the previous section.  There are two cases:

   1.  the investigating authority requires a complete record of the
       activities of a target individual;

   2.  the investigating authority is concerned with tracking down the
       user responsible for wrongful behaviour at a specific end point
       (e.g., server, individual user, enterprise network).

   Assuming that per-session logging at the NAT is to be avoided in
   general (the whole point of this document), the first requirement can
   only be met by identifying a target device in advance and enabling
   per-session logging for the internal address assigned to that device
   (... and variations for multi-address situations).  This case is
   basically out of scope of this document.

   Section 11 of [RFC6269] provides a good discussion of the
   traceability issue.  Complete traceability given the NAT logging
   practices proposed in this draft requires that the remote destination
   record the source port of a request along with the source address
   (and presumably protocol, if not implicit).  In addition, the logs at
   each end must be timestamped, and the clocks must be synchronized
   within a certain degree of accuracy.  Here is one reason for the
   guard timing on block release, to increase the tolerable level of
   clock skew between the two ends.




Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   The ability to configure various server applications to record source
   ports has been investigated, with the following results:

   o  Source port recording can be configured in Apache, Postfix,
      sendmail and sshd.  Please refer to the appendix for configuration
      guide.

   o  Source port recording is not supported by IIS, Cyrus IMAP and UW
      IMAP.  But it should not be too difficult to get Cyrus IMAP and UW
      IMAP to support it by modifying the source code.

   Where source port logging can be enabled, this memo strongly urges
   the operators to do so.  Similarly, intrusion detection systems
   should capture source port as well as source address of suspect
   packets.

   In some cases [RFC6269], a server may not record the source port of a
   connection.  To allow traceability, the NAT device needs to record
   the destination IP address of a connection.  As [RFC6269] points out,
   this will provide an incomplete solution to the issue of traceability
   because multiple users of the same shared public IP address may
   access the service at the same time.  From the point of view of this
   draft, in such situations the game is lost, so to speak, and port
   allocation at the NAT might as well be completely dynamic.

   The final possibility to consider is where the NAT does not do per-
   session logging even given the possibility that the remote end is
   failing to capture source ports.  In that case, the port allocation
   policy proposed in this draft can be used.  The impact on
   traceability is that the investigating authority would be able to
   collect only the list of all internal addresses mapped to a given
   public address during the period of time concerned.  This has an
   impact on privacy as well as traceability, depending on the follow-up
   actions taken by the investigating authority to achieve its
   objectives.

4.  Other Considerations

   [RFC6269] notes several issues introduced by the use of dynamic as
   opposed to static port assignment.  For example, Section 12.2 of that
   document notes the effect on authentication procedures.  These issues
   must be resolved, but are not specific to the port allocation policy
   described in this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.




Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations applicable to NAT operation for various
   protocols as documented in, for example, [RFC4787] and [RFC5382] also
   apply to this proposal.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Mohamed Boucadair reviewed the initial document and provided useful
   comments to improve it.  Reinaldo Penno, Joel Jaeggli, and Dan Wing
   provided comments on the subsequent version that resulted in major
   revisions.  James Huang performed the research contributed in the
   Appendix.  Serafim Petsis provided encouragement to publication after
   a hiatus of two years.

8.  Appendix A: Configure Server Software to Log Source Port

8.1.  Apache

   The user can use LogFormat command to define a customized log format
   and use CustomLog command to apply that log format.  "%a" and
   "%{remote}p" can be used in the format string to require logging the
   client's IP address and source port respectively.  This feature is
   available since Apache version 2.1.

   A detailed configuration guide can be found at [APACHE_LOG_CONFIG].

8.2.  Postfix

   In order to log the client source port, macro
   smtpd_client_port_logging should be set to "yes" in the configuration
   file.  [POSTFIX_LOG_CONFIG]

   This feature is available since Postfix version 2.5.

8.3.  Sendmail

   Sendmail has a macro ${client_port} storing the client port.  To log
   the source port, the user can define some check rules.  Here is an
   example which should be in the .mc configuration macro
   [SENDMAIL_LOG_CONFIG]:










Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   LOCAL_CONFIG
   Klog syslog

   LOCAL_RULESETS
   SLocal_check_mail
   R $* $@ $(log Port_Stat $&{client_addr} $&{client_port} $)


   This feature is available since version 8.10.

8.4.  sshd

   SSHD_CONFIG(5) OpenBSD Programmer's Manual SSHD_CONFIG(5) NAME
   sshd_config - OpenSSH SSH daemon configuration file LogLevel Gives
   the verbosity level that is used when logging messages from sshd(8).
   The possible values are: QUIET, FATAL, ERROR, INFO, VERBOSE, DEBUG,
   DEBUG1, DEBUG2, and DEBUG3.  The default is INFO.  DEBUG and DEBUG1
   are equivalent.  DEBUG2 and DEBUG3 each specify higher levels of
   debugging output.  Logging with a DEBUG level violates the privacy of
   users and is not recommended.  SyslogFacility Gives the facility code
   that is used when logging messages from sshd(8).  The possible values
   are: DAEMON, USER, AUTH, LOCAL0, LOCAL1, LOCAL2, LOCAL3, LOCAL4,
   LOCAL5, LOCAL6, LOCAL7.  The default is AUTH.

   sshd supports logging the client IP address and client port when a
   client starts connection since version 1.2.2, here is the source code
   in sshd.c:

   ...
   verbose("Connection from %.500s port %d", remote_ip, remote_port);
   ...


   sshd supports logging the client IP address when a client
   disconnects, from version 1.2.2 to version 5.0.  Since version 5.1
   sshd supports logging the client IP address and source port.  Here is
   the source code in sshd.c:

   ...
   /* from version 1.2.2 to 5.0*/
   verbose("Closing connection to %.100s", remote_ip);
   ...

   /* since version 5.1*/
   verbose("Closing connection to %.500s port %d",
   remote_ip, remote_port);





Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   In order to log the source port, the LogLevel should be set to
   VERBOSE [SSHD_LOG_CONFIG] in the configuration file:

   LogLevel    VERBOSE


8.5.  Cyrus IMAP and UW IMAP

   Cyrus IMAP and UW IMAP do not support logging the source port for the
   time being.  Both software use syslog to create logs; it should not
   be too difficult to get it supported by adding some new code.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, June
              2011.

9.2.  Informative References

   [APACHE_LOG_CONFIG]
              The Apache Software Foundation,
              "http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_log_config.html
              ", 2013.

   [I-D.bajko-pripaddrassign]
              Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., Boucadair, M., and P. Levis,
              "Port Restricted IP Address Assignment (Work in
              progress)", April 2012.

   [I-D.behave-lsn-requirements]
              Perrault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
              (CGNs) (Work in progress)", December 2012.

   [POSTFIX_LOG_CONFIG]
              , "http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html ", 2013.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
              Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
              RFC 5382, October 2008.




Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            NATx4 Log Reduction                   May 2013


   [SENDMAIL_LOG_CONFIG]
              O'Reilly, "Sendmail, 3rd Edition, Page 798", December
              2002.

   [SSHD_LOG_CONFIG]
              , "http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/
              man.cgi?query=sshd_config&sektion=5", April 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 330 4424
   Email: tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com


   Weibo Li
   China Telecom
   109, Zhongshan Ave. West, Tianhe District
   Guangzhou  510630
   P.R. China

   Email: mweiboli@gmail.com


   Tom Taylor
   Huawei Technologies
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com















Tsou, et al.           Expires November 11, 2013               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/