The OP is also asking someone to register a throwaway email, subscribe, and respond "yes" so that the owner can't be tracked to their employer. That's kind of a steep ask for something that's almost moot. On May 9, 2016 23:16, "Greg Sowell" <greg@gregsowell.com> wrote: I haven't had a request in ages...back then all of the links worked. On May 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:
What is the community hearing about CALEA?
Crickets?
-- Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311 (907) 803-5422 jhaustin@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks Whitestone Power & Communications Vertical Broadband, LLC
Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon
Hrm? On May 9, 2016 11:04 PM, "shawn wilson" <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
The OP is also asking someone to register a throwaway email, subscribe, and respond "yes" so that the owner can't be tracked to their employer. That's kind of a steep ask for something that's almost moot. On May 9, 2016 23:16, "Greg Sowell" <greg@gregsowell.com> wrote:
I haven't had a request in ages...back then all of the links worked. On May 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:
What is the community hearing about CALEA?
Crickets?
-- Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311 (907) 803-5422 jhaustin@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks Whitestone Power & Communications Vertical Broadband, LLC
Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon
Perhaps the silence is an indication no one is doing CALEA or knows anything about it? Personally, I can't say I've heard anything about CALEA, seen people trying to sell CALEA appliances, or received a CALEA request in maybe 8 years? On 5/10/16 12:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
Hrm? On May 9, 2016 11:04 PM, "shawn wilson" <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
The OP is also asking someone to register a throwaway email, subscribe, and respond "yes" so that the owner can't be tracked to their employer. That's kind of a steep ask for something that's almost moot. On May 9, 2016 23:16, "Greg Sowell" <greg@gregsowell.com> wrote:
I haven't had a request in ages...back then all of the links worked. On May 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:
What is the community hearing about CALEA?
Crickets?
-- Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311 (907) 803-5422 jhaustin@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks Whitestone Power & Communications Vertical Broadband, LLC
Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon
This is a large list that includes many Tier 1 network operators, government agencies, and Fortune 500 network operators. The silence should be telling. On May 10, 2016 2:52 PM, "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Perhaps the silence is an indication no one is doing CALEA or knows anything about it?
Personally, I can't say I've heard anything about CALEA, seen people trying to sell CALEA appliances, or received a CALEA request in maybe 8 years?
On 5/10/16 12:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
Hrm? On May 9, 2016 11:04 PM, "shawn wilson" <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
The OP is also asking someone to register a throwaway email, subscribe,
and respond "yes" so that the owner can't be tracked to their employer. That's kind of a steep ask for something that's almost moot. On May 9, 2016 23:16, "Greg Sowell" <greg@gregsowell.com> wrote:
I haven't had a request in ages...back then all of the links worked. On May 9, 2016 3:02 PM, "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:
What is the community hearing about CALEA?
Crickets?
-- Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311 (907) 803-5422 jhaustin@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks Whitestone Power & Communications Vertical Broadband, LLC
Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon
The first rule of prism is... *silence* :) On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
This is a large list that includes many Tier 1 network operators, government agencies, and Fortune 500 network operators
no one gets calea requests because prism gets all requests?
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named, individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007. I have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being unable to provide this service when requested. I would be surprised if a national broadband ISP with millions of subs did not have this ability and did not perform intercepts routinely. I would be surprised if a small town providing it's own Internet access or small WISP serving a few hundred customers went through the trouble and expense of being able to provide this service. The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation box and the LEA is not inexpensive. I believe there was talk about "trusted third parties" providing mediation-as-a-service but I do not know if any such entities exist. The logistics of running a mediation server in the cloud and being able to signal from the cloud to the aggregation box to begin a mediation and ensuring that the data exported from the ISP to the cloud to the LEA remained private would seem to be significant but not insurmountable. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
The first rule of prism is...
*silence*
:)
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
This is a large list that includes many Tier 1 network operators, government agencies, and Fortune 500 network operators
no one gets calea requests because prism gets all requests?
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named, individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd. --Ricky
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare. On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly. -MJ On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
How many requests per 1k or 10k customers? Is primarily residential a safe assumption? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Mike Joseph <mj@doze.net> wrote:
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly.
-MJ
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
CALEA isn't a type of request, it's a law that enabled par function access for LEO's e.g. "the ladder" pin register, trap+trace, DTMF translation, three-way/off hook ops and the call content (not necessarily in that order). You can see the non national security activity here: On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Joseph <mj@doze.net> wrote:
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly.
-MJ
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
Misfire. Sorry, early in the AM. The URL I intended to send is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2014 Best, -M< On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
CALEA isn't a type of request, it's a law that enabled par function access for LEO's e.g. "the ladder" pin register, trap+trace, DTMF translation, three-way/off hook ops and the call content (not necessarily in that order).
You can see the non national security activity here:
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Joseph <mj@doze.net> wrote:
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly.
-MJ
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
"Encryption The number of state wiretaps in which encryption was encountered decreased from 41 in 2013 to 22 in 2014. In two of these wiretaps, officials were unable to decipher the plain text of the messages. Three federal wiretaps were reported as being encrypted in 2014, of which two could not be decrypted. Encryption was also reported for five federal wiretaps that were conducted during previous years, but reported to the AO for the first time in 2014. Officials were able to decipher the plain text of the communications in four of the five intercepts." that's certainly interesting... On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
Misfire. Sorry, early in the AM. The URL I intended to send is here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2014
Best,
-M<
CALEA isn't a type of request, it's a law that enabled par function access for LEO's e.g. "the ladder" pin register, trap+trace, DTMF translation, three-way/off hook ops and the call content (not necessarily in that order).
You can see the non national security activity here:
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Joseph <mj@doze.net> wrote:
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly.
-MJ
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third
do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the
of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote: party can part 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky
In a message written on Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:00:59PM -0500, Josh Reynolds wrote:
This is a large list that includes many Tier 1 network operators, government agencies, and Fortune 500 network operators.
The silence should be telling.
NANOG has a strong self-selection for people who run core routing devices and do things like BGP and peering negotiations with other providers. By contrast, CALEA requirements are generally all met by features deployed at the customer-edge. These groups are often a separate silo from the backbone folks at the largest providers. This is likely the wrong list for asking such questions, and the few who do answer is likely to be smaller providers where people wear multiple hats. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
participants (10)
-
Brian Mengel -
Christopher Morrow -
Josh Luthman -
Josh Reynolds -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hannigan -
Matt Hoppes -
Mike Joseph -
Ricky Beam -
shawn wilson