[90448] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP compliance < LEAs - tech and logistics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed May 24 19:45:15 2006
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 19:44:44 -0400
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: christian@kuhtz.com, sthaug@nethelp.no, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200605241927.k4OJRuLE026055@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:27:56 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
>
> > Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true. Case and point,
> > everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has been published
> > as a standard.
>
> Actually, it's Informational rather than Standards Track. However, since
> there were patches for both a *BSD variant and Linux, we can probably scare
> up two interoperable implementations so we can move it along Standards Track. :)
>
Except for routing protocols, you don't need running code for Proposed
Standard. But yes, I received several implementation reports. I was also
told that Junipers can almost do the filtering:
Technically the CF does have the ability to see 'any bit in the
first 21 bytes' of an IP packet... (I believe it's 21 bytes at
least). The limitations on the software installed, however,
keep you from doing the arbitrary bit field/offset business.
See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/3514.html -- and note that it already
mentions Lawful Intercept. Yes, it's all from real email
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
