--- 1/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02.txt 2011-02-25 16:15:50.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03.txt 2011-02-25 16:15:50.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force A. Durand Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Intended status: BCP I. Gashinsky -Expires: July 23, 2011 Yahoo! Inc. +Expires: August 29, 2011 Yahoo! Inc. D. Lee Facebook, Inc. S. Sheppard ATT Labs - January 19, 2011 + February 25, 2011 Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers - draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02 + draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03 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 @@ -27,21 +27,21 @@ 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. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 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 @@ -58,29 +58,28 @@ 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 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. + The global IPv4 address free pool at IANA has exhausted in February + 2011. Service providers will now 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]. @@ -125,24 +124,23 @@ 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. + Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not 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 @@ -167,22 +165,22 @@ 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. + draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-04 (work in + progress), February 2011. Authors' Addresses Alain Durand Juniper Networks 1194 North Mathilda Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 USA Email: adurand@juniper.net