Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

[mailto:ianfar...@gmx.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:28 AM To: Gottlieb, Jordan J Cc: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Rajiv Asati (rajiva); ramesh.r.chan...@ril.com; yiu_...@comcast.com; softwires@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ?? Hi Jordan

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

.@comcast.com>> > Cc: "ianfar...@gmx.com <mailto:ianfar...@gmx.com>" <ianfar...@gmx.com > <mailto:ianfar...@gmx.com>>, Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com > <mailto:raj...@cisco.com>>, Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org > <mailto:so

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

, May 09, 2018 1:31 AM To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); ramesh.r.chan...@ril.com; yiu_...@comcast.com Cc: softwires@ietf.org; int-a...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ?? Hi Rajiv, What concerns me with this requirement is that it nullifies one of the motivations

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

om>" <ianfar...@gmx.com<mailto:ianfar...@gmx.com>>, Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com<mailto:raj...@cisco.com>>, Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org<mailto:softwires@ietf.org>>, "int-a...@ietf.org<mailto:int-a...@ietf.org>" <int-a...@iet

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

day, May 9, 2018 at 3:25 AM To: "yiu_...@comcast.com" <yiu_...@comcast.com>, Rajiv Asati <raj...@cisco.com> Cc: "ianfar...@gmx.com" <ianfar...@gmx.com>, Softwires-wg list <softwires@ietf.org>, "int-a...@ietf.org" <int-a...@ietf.org> Subject

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

quired to do so for administrative reasons. Cheers, Med De : Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Rajiv Asati (rajiva) Envoyé : jeudi 3 mai 2018 23:50 À : Softwires-wg list; int-a...@ietf.org Cc : ramesh.r.chan...@ril.com Objet : [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ?? Is t

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

...@gmx.com > Objet : Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. > Destination ?? > > Just a quick thought. Will the dhcpv6 logs help? > > Sent from mobile device, pardon possible typo. > > > On May 7, 2018, at 7:06 AM, "ramesh.r.chan...@ril

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

int-a...@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ?? > > Dear Ian, thanks for clarifications. > > Regulator in India mandated to preserve the following details for each flow. > 1.Source IP + Port (private for end subscriber device) [Med] Please n

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

mai 2018 23:50 À : Softwires-wg list; int-a...@ietf.org Cc : ramesh.r.chan...@ril.com Objet : [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ?? Is there an RFC (besides 6269) that encourages / discourages CGN logging of destination IP+Port if source IP+port is already logged? RFC6269 does mention

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

Hi Rajiv, Please see inline. Cheers, Ian > On 4. May 2018, at 12:01, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote: > > Ian, > > Thanks for sharing the URL. While not explicit, “all metadata” would include > both source and destination A+P. Is that the right interpretation? [if - My

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

Ian, Thanks for sharing the URL. While not explicit, “all metadata” would include both source and destination A+P. Is that the right interpretation? If an ISP were to use “binding” mode on the BR, then without using net flow/IPFIX, How could the compliance be achieved ? Cheers, Rajiv Asati

Re: [Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

Hi, As another data point on this topic, the storing of A+P data is also mandated in Hungary. From the Hungary paragraph of the 2016 EU report into implementation of the Data Retention Directive (http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/information-society-privacy-and-data-protection/data-retention):

[Softwires] ISP CGN logging inc. Destination ??

Is there an RFC (besides 6269) that encourages / discourages CGN logging of destination IP+Port if source IP+port is already logged? RFC6269 does mention the below, as compared to the server side logging of source IP+port - // logging the destination address on the NAT is inferior to