Re: ZOMG: IPv6 a plot to stymie FBI !!!11!ONE!

[Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>]

On 18 Jun 2012, at 09:48, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
> > >
> > > 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
> > >
> > > This is in the ARIN region...
> > >
> > > It's from within a particular ISP's /32.
> > >
> > > Has that ISP delegated some overlapping fraction to another ISP? If so, it's not in whois.
> > > Have they delegated it to an end user? Again, if so, it's not in whois.
> > >
> > > Same for 2001:550:10:20:62a3:3eff:fe19:2909
> > >
> > > I don't honestly know if either of those prefixes is allocated or not, so maybe nothing's wrong
> > > in this particular case, but if they have been delegated and not registered in whois, that's
> > > a real problem when it comes time to get a search warrant if speed is of the essence.
> > >
> > > Owen
> >
> >      Not being in the whois is not an indicator that the ISP (to whom the address block has been delegated) does not 
> > know about which customer has an IP (v4 or v6, doesn't matter). I have seen tons of ISPs that do not publish 
> > delegations in the whois but have a huge excel worksheets where they record every suballocation.
> >      
> >      You just need a warrant to see that info. Ergo, the FBI, interpol or you name it should not have problem to get 
> > them.
> >
> > /as
>
> Right...
>
> However...
>
> 1.    That's a violation of resource policy.
> 2.    It's an extra step and multi-day delay in a situation where time may be of the essence.
>
> Further, we're not talking about the recording of every end-user assignment so much as the fact that in some cases, 
> large delegations to down-stream ISPs are not recorded in whois. My understanding from talking to the FBI/DEA people 
> is that they want to be able to serve the correct ISP on the first try rather than iterating through multiple layers 
> of delegations.
>
> That does not seem an unreasonable expectation.
>
> Owen

        Not at all an unreasonable expectation.

        And that's the way it should be IMO.

        My point is that v6 is not very different than IPv4 in that respect.

/as