On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 04:24:49PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
Related to the LEA agencies and CGN:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/are-you-sharing-same...
And how is this really horribly different than all the Napster crap where the "owner" of an ISP account got blamed for the activities of a family member or guest? Maybe the LEA agencies need some better clue. I'm fine with them advocating for IPv6, but I have a suspicion that IPv6 is just another can of worms, because when you have "an IPv4 internets worth of internets" (64 bits) available as the host portion of an IPv6 address, and stuff like RFC 4941, they're going to continue to mistarget the account owner even in the absence of CG-NAT. Finding a law enforcement compatible method of who generated traffic currently ends up being an exercise in keeping detailed logs. Which could be done with CG-NAT. Which makes the referenced article an example of a failure to understand the true (and horrifying) nature of the problem of traffic attribution. Doesn't even begin to touch on pwnage issues. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov