Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:03 AM Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
> > * Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>
> >
> >> If they do have a port, then LEA can have a single subscriber.
> >
> > Reading the original article (linked below) I am left with the feeling
> > that the problem is that they generally *don't* know the source port,
> > and therefore end up, quote, «[unable] to identify internet subscribers
> > on the basis of an IP address».
> >
> >
> https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/are-you-sharing-same-ip-address-criminal-law-enforcement-call-for-end-of-carrier-grade-nat-cgn-to-increase-accountability-online
> >
> > The article proceeds to define «CGN» as «technologies which allow
> > sharing of IPv4 addresses with multiple internet users». In that
> > context, MAP, even though it is not technically CGNAT, is just as
> > problematic (to answer Rajiv).
> >
> > C'est la vie! If Europol don't like IP address sharing, I think the
> > only thing they actually could do about it would be to put pressure on
> > regulators and/or lawmakers to accelerate IPv6 adoption. I understand
> > that's what already happened in Belgium with impressive results.
>
> So I have no idea what's really going on here, but I can imagine someone
> doing CGN and just NATing people left and right, and not logging anything.
> Then it's near impossible to find who did what.
>
> At least when I looked into this issue, the message I got back was that
> narrowing down the user list to a few tens of subscribers was still vastly
> better than no information at all. Of course LEAs don't like it, but it's
> a lot better than nothing.
>
> Also, services who are typically involved in being targeted for crimes
> should start logging the source port of whoever is talking to them. This
> option is available in most web servers and has been for a considerable
> amount of time.
>
> Mandating IPv6 is a hard sell. Mandating ISPs to log what subscriber
> accounts was behind an IPv4 address at a given point in time including
> port used by what account, that's less far fetched.


I disagree. IPv6 is inevitable and therefore can be sold strategically.

Logging , on the other hand , is pure overhead with no long term value and
very very expensive. In my experience, deploying ipv6 is not expensive at
all. Ymmv.

I am with Tore, if the content and eyeballs cant make the business case,
govt should help make the case


>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>