[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG
jcurran at arin.net
Thu Dec 26 17:51:58 UTC 2013
On Dec 26, 2013, at 10:40 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+1net at elandsys.com> wrote:
>> For those thinking this support for traffic attribution in support of law
>> enforcement may not be all that important an issue, we've already had
>> situations of child abduction/exploitation and armed robbery which remain
>> open due to the very limited use of CGN-based transition to IPv6 on the
>> Internet today, and this will be more common with increased deployment
>> of these transition technologies (unless appropriate measures are taken
>> during deployment which accommodate these requirements.)
> That draft is about IPv4.
It's about CGN use, which occurs both in IPv4/IPv4 and as used to provide
IPv4/IPv6 compatibility. From the document, " The solution described in
this document is applicable to Carrier Grade NAT transition technologies
(e.g. NAT444, DS-Lite, and NAT64)."
> If a border was crossed the child abduction  would be a matter involving more than one country. There are already border controls in place to collect information. I don't think that it is possible to have armed robbery over a communications link.
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear... The referenced cases involve CGN devices
with insufficient logging to allow accountability for involved messages.
CGN use is going to increase in many cases because of particular service
>> Ergo, IPv6 deployment is a fine example of a Internet issue which calls
>> for more Internet coordination discussion, and may even call for a level
>> of "Internet governance" discussion (one involving a formal role for
>> governments) unless we're willing to accept purely voluntarily traffic
>> attribution capabilities...
> There is a short discussion related to the above in Appendix C of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-traffic-peeking-01
The appendix is interesting, but doesn't address the issue that presently
there is no convention for necessary routine recording of dynamic address
assignment (a very different topic from interception), nor discussion of
appropriate norms for protection of access for such information.
Disclaimers: My views alone.
More information about the discuss