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/