Re: [Softwires] [Int-area] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com> Fri, 04 May 2018 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc@daveor.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3502C12EB67; Thu, 3 May 2018 17:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=daveor.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ym-QeexgufKZ; Thu, 3 May 2018 17:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vps.ftrsolutions.com (vps.ftrsolutions.com [5.77.39.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CCFF12D88A; Thu, 3 May 2018 17:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=daveor.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9awPE1NEdBoL5RVQGLiUR0SRRf1ZstzJz5bpUca5wqQ=; b=MteXTNhWx5D+M8hULfKh81L3IK Iu+Cb6xzYZ7ZJG9/EiSRYT55OuZjoQS8v2FoEz4cXdLzJh5ILflLB62wCYggFIR6s09pXiWPu3kZv 7jzWtWOJ6870+LEpvDV4mxxRamBEGJvnqCBioXf1Z0ixshOJsVqHdgD/0waW8zKxhkLg=;
Received: from 86-44-56-31-dynamic.agg7.bsn.cld-dbn.eircom.net ([86.44.56.31]:55481 helo=[192.168.1.26]) by vps.ftrsolutions.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <rfc@daveor.com>) id 1fEOz0-000C9B-Qo; Fri, 04 May 2018 01:53:58 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com>
In-Reply-To: <56C7D96E-182F-4584-B190-DCD17957C01F@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 01:53:57 +0100
Cc: Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "Ramesh.R.Chandra@ril.com" <Ramesh.R.Chandra@ril.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0CACF256-D50A-4D0D-BE63-B6A79016A966@daveor.com>
References: <56C7D96E-182F-4584-B190-DCD17957C01F@cisco.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - vps.ftrsolutions.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - daveor.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: vps.ftrsolutions.com: authenticated_id: dave@daveor.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: vps.ftrsolutions.com: dave@daveor.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/vi71s5OJMs4LbDYsaJXcCoGy5rY>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Int-area] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 00:54:04 -0000

Hi Rajiv,

For what it’s worth, my Internet draft also discourages connection/destination logging - draft-daveor-cgn-logging-04 (see section 3). 

Re the Indian government mandated connection logging that you mentioned - I was not aware of this but it is a piece of strong supporting evidence for exactly the point I was making in an email earlier this week (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area/current/msg06442.html) where I outlined the regulatory alternatives that are the only options left for dealing with CGN crime attribution (if source port logging at internet facing servers does not become routine) - one of which was this form of connection logging. 

As I said at the time, the crime attribution information gap introduced by CGN is a problem right now, and something is going to have be done about it, either by the “internet” (as I’m trying to advocate for), or if not, then by regulatory action that will be introduced in individual jurisdictions in due course. I reiterate the point I made at the time: when ISP regulators get their hands on a problem, they come up with ISP-centric solutions, all of which are far worse from a privacy point of view than source port logging.

I predict that many other national ISP regulators will be forced to act on this problem in the coming years, and in the absence of meaningful alternatives will mandate similar logging.

daveor


> On 3 May 2018, at 22:50, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there an RFC (besides 6269) that encourages / discourages CGN logging of destination IP+Port if source IP+port is already logged?
>  
> RFC6269 does mention the below, as compared to the server side logging of source IP+port -
> // logging the destination address on the NAT is inferior
>    to logging the source port at the server.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6269
> //
>  
> (BTW, having both source+destination in the NAT log implicitly means no bulk allocation of source ports possible)
>  
> Separately, this prohibits using stateless NAT based solutions such as MAP or using deterministic NAT, since there is no logging in such solutions. If such a guideline was also mandated for native IPv6, then it would pose an interesting deployment issue. 
>  
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv Asati
> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
>  
> PS: Few may be aware of Govt. of India’s mandate* to log both source and destination IP+port pair.
> Click on “Parameter to be stored in SYS Log of Network Address Translation (NAT) for Internet Access” on this page - https://www.corestack.io/blog/the-log-mandate-enabling-indian-isps-to-adhere-to-dot-compliance-rules/
>  
> PS: 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6302
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7422
>  
>  
> Session and service continuity            
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area