Re: [v6ops] Google Alert - IPv6

[Dave O'Reilly <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lee,

some comments inline below,

daveor

> 
> 
>> Can we regulate our way out of this problem?
>> ——————————————————————————————
> 
> Probably not. Countries with the highest IPv6 deployment have had either
> no government influence, or little more than government talking with
> industry about their IPv6 deployment plans. Countries with IPv6 mandates
> on industry seem to have very low actual deployment.
> 

I completely agree with you that there are too many regulatory models around the world for a recommendation of regulatory solutions to this problem to be likely to meet with much success. However, Belgium has the highest IPv6 adoption rate on the planet according to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption and I understand that the reason for this is that the telecoms regulator in Belgium required that a maximum of (I think it was) 16 people can be sharing a single IP address on a CGNAT at any given time. I forget the exact figures but it was definitely a regulatory intervention.

>> 
>> Considering regulation as a way to adjust economic incentives, there is
>> indeed an opportunity to help to shift things along in one or more
>> countries through regulation, but to what extent will this help with the
>> global issue of crime attribution?
> 
> To the degree that IPv6 and/or proper port/timestamp logging is adopted.
> Either will work, but this is becoming much more of a content operator
> problem than an ISP or mobile carrier problem.

Actually I see it as a “people helping themselves" versus a “wait for the problem to go away” solution. True to say, however, that the solution (source port logging) needs to be implemented by content providers rather than ISPs.

> 
> 
>> It is clear that if the number of subscribers that can be simultaneously
>> behind a CGNAT is limited, the deployment of IPv6 increases, and the IPv6
>> adoption in Belgium bears that out.
> 
> Yes, and I think you’re right, but the Belgian interpretation that address
> sharing must not exceed 16:1 may not be generalizable. That is: Belgium is
> one country, and we don’t know if their rule would work everywhere.
> 

Absolutely agree with you - regulatory solutions are not general solutions.

>> 
>> 
>> However, the obvious question to ask is - are the Belgian authorities
>> catching any more criminals now that they have such a high adoption rate
>> of IPv6? Has the problem of crime attribution due to CGNAT gone away for
>> them, or does it actually require global adoption of IPv6?
> 
> The question is more like, “Are Belgian authorities catching more
> criminals than other countries in proportion to their IPv6 deployment?”
> They’re probably not catching more bad guys than they were before CGN,
> they’re just trying not to lose ground.
> And the answer is probably not good, because although Belgium has great
> numbers on eyeballs, their IPv6 deployment on content sites is still weak
> (https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=be ).
> 
> 

Exactly! So they can attribute domestic IPv6 activity to domestic IPv6 addresses but the second IPv4 to IPv6 transition takes place they’re no better off than anyone else.

>> 
>> One possible solution frequently cited to the problem of CGNAT is
>> migration to IPv6.However, does migration to IPv6 ACTUALLY solve the
>> problem of crime attribution due to large-scale address sharing?
> 
> Only if content providers deploy IPv6, including logging.
> 
>> The problem is that law enforcement agencies do not have the required
>> information to be able to ask the ISP for the subscriber identity -
>> because source ports are required and not logged anywhere.
>> 
>> So the question becomes how to address this information gap. One
>> possibility is that ISPs must record all destination IP addresses for all
>> TCP connections, 
> 
> If the problem is that content providers are not logging enough
> information to identify users reaching their content, why in the world
> would this gap become the ISPs' problem? Regulate the content providers if
> they’re the ones providing insufficient information.
> 

Well, here again we’re back to regulation as a possible solution. Practically everywhere in the world there is already a regulatory framework in place for ISPs and therefore the easy answer is to enforce additional regulation on ISPs - requiring them to solve this problem. 

As I mentioned in a previous email response that I just wrote, I see this as an information gap problem - there is a gap between the records ISPs are keeping and the available records at (most) content providers. The question is how best to fill this gap.

>> 
>> The role of the IETF in this
>> ——————————————————————————————
>> 
>> Right from the front page of the IETF website: "The mission of the IETF
>> is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant
>> technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage
>> the Internet.”
>> 
>> Large scale address sharing technologies present a challenge to the
>> management of the Internet so that seems to fit right within the remit of
>> the IETF to me. Correct me if I’m wrong...
> 
> Not entirely, but this seems more operational to me, and might be better
> targeted as a recommendation for how to manage servers.
> 

Well, the IETF has already published such recommendations (RFC6302). The question is what, if anything, else the IETF can/should do. 

I wrote this document and I didn’t really know what to do with it, so I published it as an internet draft and have been trying to collect input on what/where the best places to progress the conversation are…and here we are.

daveor