nanog mailing list archives
Re: Carrier Grade NAT
From: Chris Boyd <cboyd () gizmopartners com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:42:31 -0500
On Jul 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If law enforcement comes along without port numbers then you give them a list of subscribers behind that IP at the time. Use port block allocation and keep track of the blocks to reduce logging load.
There's probably going to be some interesting legal fallout from that practice. As an ISP customer, I'd be furious to find out that my communications had been intercepted due to the bad behavior of another user. --Chris
Current thread:
- Carrier Grade NAT Colton Conor (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Daniel Corbe (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Colton Conor (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Daniel Corbe (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Colton Conor (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Chris Boyd (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Matt Palmer (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Chris Boyd (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Chris Boyd (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Livingood, Jason (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT John Levine (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT William Herrin (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Carrier Grade NAT Daniel Corbe (Jul 29)