idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02.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 (January 19, 2011) is 4839 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment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: July 23, 2011 Yahoo! Inc. 6 D. Lee 7 Facebook, Inc. 8 S. Sheppard 9 ATT Labs 10 January 19, 2011 12 Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers 13 draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02 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 July 23, 2011. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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. It 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, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate to the second, from a 116 traceable time source (e.g. NTP). 118 o The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port 119 number, when the server application is defined to use multiple 120 transports or multiple ports. 122 Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle 123 ports, some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost 124 immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port 125 ready for reuse. As a result, servers have no idea how fast the 126 ports will be reused and, thus, should log timestamps using a 127 reasonably accurate clock. At this point the RECOMMENDED accuracy 128 for timestamps is to the second or better. Representation of 129 timestamps in UTC is preffered to localtime with UTC-offset or time 130 zone as this extra information can be lost in the reporting chain. 132 Examples of Internet facing servers include, but are not limited to, 133 web servers and email servers. 135 Although the deployment of address sharing techniques is not 136 immediately foreseen in IPv6, the above recommendations apply to both 137 IPv4 and IPv6, if only for consistency and code simplification 138 reasons. 140 Discussions about data retention policies are out of scope for this 141 document. 143 The above recommendations also applies to devices such as load- 144 balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers. 146 3. ISP Considerations 148 ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a 149 corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the 150 relation between a customer's identity and IP/port resources 151 utilized. However, recommendations on this topic are out of scope 152 for this document. 154 4. IANA Considerations 156 None. 158 5. Security Considerations 160 In the absence of source port number and accurate timestamp, 161 operators deploying any address sharing techniques will not be able 162 to identify unambiguously customers when dealing with abuse or public 163 safety queries. 165 6. References 167 6.1. Normative references 169 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 170 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 172 6.2. Informative references 174 [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] 175 Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. 176 Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", 177 draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in 178 progress), October 2010. 180 Authors' Addresses 182 Alain Durand 183 Juniper Networks 184 1194 North Mathilda Avenue 185 Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 186 USA 188 Email: adurand@juniper.net 190 Igor Gashinsky 191 Yahoo! Inc. 192 45 West 18th St. 193 New York, NY 10011 194 USA 196 Email: igor@yahoo-inc.com 197 Donn Lee 198 Facebook, Inc. 199 1601 S. California Ave. 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 201 USA 203 Email: donn@fb.com 205 Scott Sheppard 206 ATT Labs 207 575 Morosgo Ave, 4d57 208 Atlanta, GA 30324 209 USA 211 Email: Scott.Sheppard@att.com