Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Durand
Request for Comments: 6302 Juniper Networks
BCP: 162 I. Gashinsky
Category: Best Current Practice Yahoo! Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Lee
Facebook, Inc.
S. Sheppard
ATT Labs
June 2011
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Durand
Request for Comments: 6302 Juniper Networks
BCP: 162 I. Gashinsky
Category: Best Current Practice Yahoo! Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Lee
Facebook, Inc.
S. Sheppard
ATT Labs
June 2011
Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers
面向Internet服务器的日志记录建议
Abstract
摘要
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.
在IPv4耗尽和IP地址共享技术部署之后，本文档建议面向Internet的服务器除了记录传入的IP地址外，还要记录端口号和准确的时间戳。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
本备忘录记录了互联网最佳实践。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关BCP的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6302.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6302.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. ISP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The global IPv4 address free pool at IANA was 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 existing global 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; however, this is a process that will take years, perhaps decades.
IANA的全局IPv4地址空闲池于2011年2月耗尽。服务提供商现在很难找到足够的IPv4全局地址来维持产品和用户的增长。由于现有庞大的全球基础设施，在可预见的未来，硬件和软件、供应商和服务提供商都必须继续支持IPv4技术。随着遗留应用程序和硬件的退役，对IPv4的依赖将减少；然而，这是一个需要数年甚至数十年的过程。
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 document. All include some form of address translation/address sharing, being NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146] or DS-Lite [DS-LITE].
为了维护旧式IPv4地址支持，服务提供商将别无选择，只能在多个客户之间共享IPv4全局地址。执行此操作的技术不在本文档的范围内。所有这些都包括某种形式的地址转换/地址共享，即NAT44[RFC3022]、NAT64[RFC6146]或DS-Lite[DS-Lite]。
The effects on the Internet of the introduction of those address sharing techniques have been documented in [RFC6269].
[RFC6269]中记录了这些地址共享技术的引入对互联网的影响。
Address sharing techniques come with their own logging infrastructure to track the relation between which original IP address and source 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 public safety requests, the knowledge of the external global IP address was enough to identify a subscriber of interest. With address sharing technologies, only providing information about the external public address associated with a session to a service provider is no longer sufficient information to unambiguously identify customers.
地址共享技术自带了自己的日志记录基础设施，用于跟踪在任何给定时间点，哪些原始IP地址和源端口与哪个用户和外部IPv4地址关联。在过去，为了支持滥用缓解或公共安全请求，对外部全局IP地址的了解足以确定感兴趣的订户。使用地址共享技术，仅向服务提供商提供与会话相关联的外部公共地址信息已不再足以明确识别客户。
Note: This document provides recommendations for Internet-facing servers logging incoming connections. It does not provide any recommendations about logging on carrier-grade NAT or other address sharing tools.
注意：本文档为面向Internet的服务器记录传入连接提供了建议。它没有提供任何关于登录运营商级NAT或其他地址共享工具的建议。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
It is RECOMMENDED as best current practice that Internet-facing servers logging incoming IP addresses from inbound IP traffic also log:
作为当前最佳实践，建议面向Internet的服务器记录入站IP流量的入站IP地址，并记录：
o The source port number.
o 源端口号。
o A timestamp, RECOMMENDED in UTC, accurate to the second, from a traceable time source (e.g., NTP [RFC5905]).
o 时间戳，建议使用UTC，精确到秒，来自可追踪的时间源（例如NTP[RFC5905]）。
o The transport protocol (usually TCP or UDP) and destination port number, when the server application is defined to use multiple transports or multiple ports.
o 当服务器应用程序定义为使用多个传输或多个端口时，传输协议（通常为TCP或UDP）和目标端口号。
Discussion: Carrier-grade NATs may have different policies to recycle ports; some implementations may decide to reuse ports almost immediately, some may wait several minutes before marking the port 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 preferred to local time with UTC-offset or time zone, as this extra information can be lost in the reporting chain.
讨论：运营商级NAT可能有不同的回收端口政策；有些实现可能会决定几乎立即重用端口，有些可能会等待几分钟，然后再将端口标记为可重用。因此，服务器不知道端口的重用速度有多快，因此，应该使用合理准确的时钟记录时间戳。此时，时间戳的建议精度为秒或更高。使用UTC表示时间戳比使用UTC偏移量或时区表示本地时间更可取，因为这些额外信息可能会在报告链中丢失。
Examples of Internet-facing servers include, but are not limited to, web servers and email servers.
面向Internet的服务器示例包括但不限于web服务器和电子邮件服务器。
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.
尽管IPv6中未预见到地址共享技术的部署，但上述建议适用于IPv4和IPv6，只要出于一致性和代码简化的原因。
Discussions about data-retention policies are out of scope for this document. Server security and transport security are 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.
有关数据保留策略的讨论超出了本文档的范围。服务器安全和传输安全对于面向Internet的系统的日志保护非常重要。面向Internet的服务器的运营商必须考虑风险，包括服务器上的数据和服务，以确定适当的措施。日志保护在事件调查中至关重要。如果日志被篡改，证据可能会被销毁。
The above recommendations also apply to devices such as load-balancers logging incoming connections on behalf of actual servers.
上述建议也适用于负载平衡器等设备，它们代表实际服务器记录传入连接。
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.
上述建议适用于当前的日志记录实践。它们不需要对日志记录的执行方式进行任何更改；e、 例如，检查并记录哪些数据包。
ISP deploying IP address sharing techniques should also deploy a corresponding logging architecture to maintain records of the relation between a customer's identity and IP/port resources utilized. However, recommendations on this topic are out of scope for this document.
部署IP地址共享技术的ISP还应部署相应的日志体系结构，以维护客户身份与所使用IP/端口资源之间关系的记录。然而，关于这一主题的建议超出了本文件的范围。
In the absence of the source port number and accurate timestamp information, operators deploying any address sharing techniques will not be able to identify unambiguously customers when dealing with abuse or public safety queries.
由于缺少源端口号和准确的时间戳信息，在处理滥用或公共安全查询时，部署任何地址共享技术的运营商将无法明确识别客户。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[DS-LITE] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", Work in Progress, May 2011.
[DS-LITE]Durand，A.，Droms，R.，Woodyatt，J.，和Y.Lee，“IPv4耗尽后的双栈LITE宽带部署”，正在进行的工作，2011年5月。
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January 2001.
[RFC3022]Srisuresh，P.和K.Egevang，“传统IP网络地址转换器（传统NAT）”，RFC 3022，2001年1月。
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC5905]Mills，D.，Martin，J.，Burbank，J.，和W.Kasch，“网络时间协议版本4：协议和算法规范”，RFC 59052010年6月。
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6146]Bagnulo，M.，Matthews，P.，和I.van Beijnum，“有状态NAT64：从IPv6客户端到IPv4服务器的网络地址和协议转换”，RFC 61462011年4月。
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, June 2011.
[RFC6269]福特，M.，Ed.，Boucadair，M.，Durand，A.，Levis，P.，和P.Roberts，“IP地址共享问题”，RFC 6269，2011年6月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Alain Durand Juniper Networks 1194 North Mathilda Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 USA
美国加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔北马蒂尔达大道1194号阿兰·杜兰德·朱尼珀网络公司，邮编94089-1206
EMail: adurand@juniper.net
EMail: adurand@juniper.net
Igor Gashinsky Yahoo! Inc. 45 West 18th St. New York, NY 10011 USA
igorgashinskyyahoo！美国纽约州纽约市西18街45号，邮编：10011
EMail: igor@yahoo-inc.com
EMail: igor@yahoo-inc.com
Donn Lee Facebook, Inc. 1601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
Donn Lee Facebook，Inc.美国加利福尼亚州帕洛阿尔托南加州大道1601号，邮编94304
EMail: donn@fb.com
EMail: donn@fb.com
Scott Sheppard ATT Labs 575 Morosgo Ave, 4d57 Atlanta, GA 30324 USA
Scott Sheppard ATT实验室美国佐治亚州亚特兰大莫洛斯哥大道575号，邮编：4d57，邮编：30324
EMail: Scott.Sheppard@att.com
EMail: Scott.Sheppard@att.com