idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 9, 2010) is 4858 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force A. Durand 3 Internet-Draft Juniper Networks 4 Intended status: BCP I. Gashinsky 5 Expires: June 12, 2011 Yahoo! Inc. 6 D. Lee 7 Facebook, Inc. 8 S. Sheppard 9 ATT Labs 10 December 9, 2010 12 Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers 13 draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-00 15 Abstract 17 In the wake of IPv4 exhaustion and deployment of IP address sharing 18 techniques, this document recommends that Internet facing servers log 19 port number and accurate timestamps in addition to the incoming IP 20 address. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2011. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 1. Introduction 68 According to the most recent predictions, the global IPv4 address 69 free pool at IANA will exhaust sometime in 2011. After that, service 70 providers will have a hard time finding enough IPv4 global addresses 71 to sustain product and subscriber growth. Due to the huge global 72 existing infrastructure, both hardware and software, vendors and 73 service providers must continue to support IPv4 technologies for the 74 foreseeable future. As legacy applications and hardware are retired 75 the reliance on IPv4 will diminish but this is a years long perhaps 76 decades long process. 78 To maintain legacy IPv4 address support, service providers will have 79 little choice but to share IPv4 global addresses among multiple 80 customers. Techniques to do so are outside of the scope of this 81 documents. All include some form of address translation/address 82 sharing, being NAT44, NAT64 or DS-Lite. 84 The effects on the Internet of the introduction of those address 85 sharing techniques have been documented in 86 [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]. 88 Address sharing techniques come with their own logging infrastructure 89 to track the relation between which original IP address and source 90 port(s) were associated with which user and external IPv4 address at 91 any given point in time. In the past to support abuse mitigation or 92 public safety requests, the knowledge of the external global IP 93 address was enough to identify a subscriber of interest. With 94 address sharing technologies, only providing information about the 95 external public address associated with a session to a service 96 provider is no longer sufficient information to unambiguously 97 identify customers. 99 Note: this document provides recommendations for Internet facing 100 servers logging incoming connections. Its does not provide any 101 recommendations about logging on carrier-grade NAT or other address 102 sharing tools. 104 2. Recommendations 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 108 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 110 It is RECOMMENDED as best current practice that Internet facing 111 servers logging incoming IP addresses also log: 113 o The source port number. 115 o A timestamp accurate to the second, with associated time zone. 117 o The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port 118 number, when the server application is defined to use multiple 119 transports or multiple ports. 121 Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle 122 ports, some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost 123 immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port 124 ready for reuse. As a result, servers have no idea how fast the 125 ports will be reused and, thus, should log timestamps using a 126 reasonably accurate clock. At this point the RECOMMENDED accuracy 127 for timestamps is to the second or better. 129 Examples of Internet facing servers include, but are not limited to, 130 web servers and email servers. 132 Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not 133 immediately foreseen in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both 134 IPv4 and IPv6, if only for consistency and code simplification 135 reasons. 137 Discussions about data retention policies are out of scope for this 138 document. 140 3. ISP Considerations 142 ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a 143 corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the 144 relation between customers identity and IP/port resources they 145 utilize. However, recommendation on this topic are out of scope for 146 this document. 148 4. IANA Considerations 150 None. 152 5. Security Considerations 154 In the absence of source port number and accurate timestamp, 155 operators deploying any address sharing techniques will not be able 156 to identify unambiguously customers when dealing with abuse or public 157 safety queries. 159 6. References 161 6.1. Normative references 163 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 164 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 166 6.2. Informative references 168 [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] 169 Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. 170 Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", 171 draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in 172 progress), October 2010. 174 Authors' Addresses 176 Alain Durand 177 Juniper Networks 178 1194 North Mathilda Avenue 179 Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 180 USA 182 Email: adurand@juniper.net 184 Igor Gashinsky 185 Yahoo! Inc. 186 45 West 18th St. 187 New York, NY 10011 188 USA 190 Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com 192 Donn Lee 193 Facebook, Inc. 194 1601 S. California Ave. 195 Palo Alto, CA 94304 196 USA 198 Email: donn@facebook.com 199 Scott Sheppard 200 ATT Labs 201 575 Morosgo Ave, 4d57 202 Atlanta, GA 30324 203 USA 205 Email: Scott.Sheppard@att.com