Hi Rajiv, Please see inline.
Cheers, Ian > On 4. May 2018, at 12:01, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <raj...@cisco.com> 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 understanding is that per-flow logging is necessary to meet the requirement, but I’m not familiar enough with the legislation to know what exactly needs to be stored.] > > If an ISP were to use “binding” mode on the BR, then without using net > flow/IPFIX, How could the compliance be achieved ? [if - If there’s address sharing and the requirement is to provide an exact match to a data retention request (in some countries, a list of e.g. 16 users is OK), then AFAICS, you have to use IPFIX. The implementation problem for this is compounded by the lack of state table on most BR implementations (e.g. how do you know when a UDP session has completed without state for that flow?)] _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
