draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02.txt   draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Durand Internet Engineering Task Force A. Durand
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: BCP I. Gashinsky Intended status: BCP I. Gashinsky
Expires: July 23, 2011 Yahoo! Inc. Expires: August 29, 2011 Yahoo! Inc.
D. Lee D. Lee
Facebook, Inc. Facebook, Inc.
S. Sheppard S. Sheppard
ATT Labs ATT Labs
January 19, 2011 February 25, 2011
Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers
draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02 draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03
Abstract Abstract
In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing
techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log
port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP
address. address.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
According to the most recent predictions, the global IPv4 address The global IPv4 address free pool at IANA has exhausted in February
free pool at IANA will exhaust sometime in 2011. After that, service 2011. Service providers will now have a hard time finding enough
providers will have a hard time finding enough IPv4 global addresses IPv4 global addresses to sustain product and subscriber growth. Due
to sustain product and subscriber growth. Due to the huge global to the huge global existing infrastructure, both hardware and
existing infrastructure, both hardware and software, vendors and software, vendors and service providers must continue to support IPv4
service providers must continue to support IPv4 technologies for the technologies for the foreseeable future. As legacy applications and
foreseeable future. As legacy applications and hardware are retired hardware are retired the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a
the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a years long perhaps years long perhaps decades long process.
decades long process.
To maintain legacy IPv4 address support, service providers will have To maintain legacy IPv4 address support, service providers will have
little choice but to share IPv4 global addresses among multiple little choice but to share IPv4 global addresses among multiple
customers. Techniques to do so are outside of the scope of this customers. Techniques to do so are outside of the scope of this
documents. All include some form of address translation/address documents. All include some form of address translation/address
sharing, being NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite. sharing, being NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite.
The effects on the Internet of the introduction of those address The effects on the Internet of the introduction of those address
sharing techniques have been documented in sharing techniques have been documented in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]. [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues].
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
ready for reuse. As a result, servers have no idea how fast the ready for reuse. As a result, servers have no idea how fast the
ports will be reused and, thus, should log timestamps using a ports will be reused and, thus, should log timestamps using a
reasonably accurate clock. At this point the RECOMMENDED accuracy reasonably accurate clock. At this point the RECOMMENDED accuracy
for timestamps is to the second or better. Representation of for timestamps is to the second or better. Representation of
timestamps in UTC is preffered to localtime with UTC-offset or time timestamps in UTC is preffered to localtime with UTC-offset or time
zone as this extra information can be lost in the reporting chain. zone as this extra information can be lost in the reporting chain.
Examples of Internet facing servers include, but are not limited to, Examples of Internet facing servers include, but are not limited to,
web servers and email servers. web servers and email servers.
Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not foreseen
immediately foreseen in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both IPv4 and IPv6, if
IPv4 and IPv6, if only for consistency and code simplification only for consistency and code simplification reasons.
reasons.
Discussions about data retention policies are out of scope for this Discussions about data retention policies are out of scope for this
document. document.
The above recommendations also applies to devices such as load- The above recommendations also applies to devices such as load-
balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers. balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers.
3. ISP Considerations 3. ISP Considerations
ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
6.1. Normative references 6.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative references 6.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-04 (work in
progress), October 2010. progress), February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alain Durand Alain Durand
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Avenue 1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
USA USA
Email: adurand@juniper.net Email: adurand@juniper.net
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/