On 6/20/2006 1:33 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Yes, the vendors are aware of this. Our legal people track it pretty closely, and we have been dealing with the issues in Europe, Australia, and a number of other places for quite a while. We talk directly with legislators, regulators, and various police entities.
I was more curious about operators but this is interesting
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3924.txt 3924 Cisco Architecture for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks. F. Baker, B. Foster, C. Sharp. October 2004. (Format: TXT=40826 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
This is interesting approach. For one, it seems to cover a lot more technology than CALEA requires. I suppose that is an artifact of trying to serve multiple countries' requiresments in a single architecture. Also, to my knowledge the FCC/FBI have not yet agreed to accept any kind of pure packet-level intercept interfaces as meeting LEA requirements. The only "approved" interfaces I know of are for telco and cellular networks (see http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html). Until they approve a packet-based interface like you describe, it remains unapproved by default, meaning that it would not count to satisfy the CALEA requirements, right? You said that you put this to ETSI; have you put it to the FCC and FBI for approval as a qualified interface? Along those same lines... given that the covered VoIP providers are mostly going to be interfacing to PSTN, my general assumption is that they will use 3rd party gear to provide the supported CALEA interfaces, and then interface that device into their VoIP infrastructure somehow (this assumes the operator isn't using a real switch with CALEA interfaces already built-in). A pure packet-based interface would be cheaper and better than that, but given the reasons above it seems unlikely in the short term. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/