[173597] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Carrier Grade NAT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 29 13:01:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <A66E4E82-7CA6-438D-AFC3-4B0D6FD3D2B3@gizmopartners.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:57:54 -0700
To: Chris Boyd <cboyd@gizmopartners.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Chris Boyd <cboyd@gizmopartners.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>=20
>> If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give =
them a list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block =
allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load.
>=20
> There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that =
practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my =
communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another =
user.
>=20
> --Chris
As an ISP customer, would you really accept not being supplied a =
globally unique address? Really? I would not.
Owen
