draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03.txt		draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-04.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: August 29, 2011 Yahoo! Inc.		Expires: October 21, 2011 Yahoo! Inc.
	D. Lee		D. Lee
	Facebook, Inc.		Facebook, Inc.
	S. Sheppard		S. Sheppard
	ATT Labs		ATT Labs
	February 25, 2011		April 19, 2011
	Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers		Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers
	draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-03		draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-04
	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 August 29, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 21, 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 2, line 14		skipping to change at page 2, line 14
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The global IPv4 address free pool at IANA has exhausted in February		The global IPv4 address free pool at IANA was exhausted in February
	2011. Service providers will now have a hard time finding enough		2011. Service providers will now have a hard time finding enough
	IPv4 global addresses to sustain product and subscriber growth. Due		IPv4 global addresses to sustain product and subscriber growth. Due
	to the huge global existing infrastructure, both hardware and		to the huge global existing infrastructure, both hardware and
	software, vendors and service providers must continue to support IPv4		software, vendors and service providers must continue to support IPv4
	technologies for the foreseeable future. As legacy applications and		technologies for the foreseeable future. As legacy applications and
	hardware are retired the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a		hardware are retired the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a
	years long perhaps decades long process.		years long perhaps 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		document. All include some form of address translation/address
	sharing, being NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite.		sharing, being NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64
			[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] or DS-Lite
			[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-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].
	Address sharing techniques come with their own logging infrastructure		Address sharing techniques come with their own logging infrastructure
	to track the relation between which original IP address and source		to track the relation between which original IP address and source
	port(s) were associated with which user and external IPv4 address at		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		any given point in time. In the past to support abuse mitigation or
	public safety requests, the knowledge of the external global IP		public safety requests, the knowledge of the external global IP
	skipping to change at page 3, line 49		skipping to change at page 3, line 51
	recommendations about logging on carrier-grade NAT or other address		recommendations about logging on carrier-grade NAT or other address
	sharing tools.		sharing tools.
	2. Recommendations		2. Recommendations
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	It is RECOMMENDED as best current practice that Internet facing		It is RECOMMENDED as best current practice that Internet facing
	servers logging incoming IP addresses also log:		servers logging incoming IP addresses from inbound IP traffic also
			log:
	o The source port number.		o The source port number.
	o A timestamp, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate to the second, from a		o A timestamp, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate to the second, from a
	traceable time source (e.g. NTP).		traceable time source (e.g., NTP [RFC5905]).
	o The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port		o The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port
	number, when the server application is defined to use multiple		number, when the server application is defined to use multiple
	transports or multiple ports.		transports or multiple ports.
	Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle		Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle
	ports, some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost		ports, some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost
	immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port		immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port
	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 prefered 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 foreseen		Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not foreseen
	in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both IPv4 and IPv6, if		in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both IPv4 and IPv6, if
	only for consistency and code simplification reasons.		only for consistency and code simplification 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. Server security and transport security is important for
			the protection of logs for Internet facing systems. The operator of
			the Internet facing server must consider the risks, including the
			data and services on the server to determine the appropriate
			measures. The protection of logs is critical in incident
			investigations. If logs are tampered with, evidence could be
			destroyed.
	The above recommendations also applies to devices such as load-		The above recommendations also apply to devices such as load-
	balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers.		balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers.
			The above recommendations apply to current logging practices. They
			do not require any changes in the way logging is performed; e.g.,
			which packets are examined and logged.
	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
	corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the		corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the
	relation between a customer's identity and IP/port resources		relation between a customer's identity and IP/port resources
	utilized. However, recommendations on this topic are out of scope		utilized. However, recommendations on this topic are out of scope
	for this document.		for this document.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	skipping to change at page 5, line 21		skipping to change at page 5, line 29
	6. References		6. References
	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-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
			Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful
			NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
			Clients to IPv4 Servers",
			draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in
			progress), July 2010.
	[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-04 (work in		draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-05 (work in
	progress), February 2011.		progress), March 2011.
			[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
			Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
			Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
			Exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 (work
			in progress), March 2011.
			[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
			Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
			January 2001.
			[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
			Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
			Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
	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. 16 change blocks.
	16 lines changed or deleted		50 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/