ISP compliance < LEAs - tech and logistics

> >>The guy wants to say, please raise your eyes
above the horizon of your
> >>plate and view a not yet existing country named
europe. Here our
> >>infrastructure is a lot more advanced and we
have standardized a
> >>common eavesdropping api.
> > 
> > 
> > We have? News to me.
> > 
> > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaugnethelp.no
> 
> Institut européen des normes de télécommunication
> 
> http://portal.etsi.org/docbox/Works
hop/GSC/GSC10_RT_Joint_Session/00index.txt

I see a list of documents. I see no sign that these
documents are
standards, nor that they are actually *implemented*. I know
for a fact
that the service provider I work for has not implemented
this on the
IP side.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaugnethelp.no

On May 24, 2006, at 9:44 AM, sthaugnethelp.no wrote:
>
> I see a list of documents. I see no sign that these
documents are
> standards, nor that they are actually *implemented*. I
know for a fact
> that the service provider I work for has not
implemented this on the
> IP side.

Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true.  Case
and point,  
everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has been
published  
as a standard.



Best regards,
Christian

On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:

> Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true. 
Case and point,  
> everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it has
been published  
> as a standard.

Actually, it's Informational rather than Standards Track. 
However, since
there were patches for both a *BSD variant and Linux, we can
probably scare
up two interoperable implementations so we can move it along
Standards Track. 

On May 24, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Valdis.Kletnieksvt.edu
wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
>
>> Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be true.
 Case and point,
>> everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it
has been published
>> as a standard.
>
> Actually, it's Informational rather than Standards
Track.

Nitpicky bugger, good grief.   It's
an RFC, therefore it is  
gospel. 

> However, since
> there were patches for both a *BSD variant and Linux,
we can  
> probably scare
> up two interoperable implementations so we can move it
along  
> Standards Track. 

Stop, Vladis, stop, you're scarying me.

On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:27:56 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieksvt.edu
wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:39:05 EDT, Christian Kuhtz said:
> 
> > Now, now, Steinar, we all know that cannot be
true.  Case and point,  
> > everyone has implemented RFC 3514, just because it
has been published  
> > as a standard.
> 
> Actually, it's Informational rather than Standards
Track.  However, since
> there were patches for both a *BSD variant and Linux,
we can probably scare
> up two interoperable implementations so we can move it
along Standards Track. 
> 
Except for routing protocols, you don't need running code
for Proposed
Standard.  But yes, I received several implementation
reports.  I was also
told that Junipers can almost do the filtering:

    Technically the CF does have the ability to see 'any
bit in the
    first 21 bytes' of an IP packet... (I believe it's 21
bytes at
    least).  The limitations on the software installed,
however,
    keep you from doing the arbitrary bit field/offset
business.

See http://www.
cs.columbia.edu/~smb/3514.html -- and note that it
already
mentions Lawful Intercept.  Yes, it's all from real email

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbi
a.edu/~smb