[159820] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sander Steffann)
Wed Jan 23 08:38:17 2013
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <50FFD9BE.8080601@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:37:57 +0100
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
> There are several conflicting requirements, including:
>=20
> - requirement to run a business which makes money
> - constraints on IPv4 addresses which mandate NAT
> - law enforcement requirements, mandating either logging / port =
tracking
> - network telemetry
>=20
> law enforcement requirements aren't generally an issue until you get =
hit up
> by a LEA / court order, at which point they become critical to =
ensuring
> that your management doesn't end up displaying contempt of court. For =
some
> reason, management can get quite excited about this - more so than any
> enthusiasm they might ever show for good quality network telemetry.
I am so glad that Dutch law enforcement officially confirmed that =
logging is not allowed by law because of privacy impact, and that port =
tracking is not required.
Yes: they see that this will cause problems. But "it's the law" (at =
least, the current law).
- Sander