Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:53 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Mark Smith; Thomas Narten; Hinden; b...@core3.amsl.com; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: New draft on "Stub Router Advertisements in IPv6 > NeighborDiscovery" > > > The lawful intercept question is an interesting one, but > > as you say if the ISP owns both the L2 and L3 infrastucture > > there should be a way to support it. It may be much more > > challenging to do the intercept from L2 switches located > > close to the CPEs, however, since you may need many points > > of intercept in order to watch all CPEs. > > > >> I think it'd be useful if this draft or associated ones provided a > >> mechanism applicable to this ISP scenario. > > > > OK. Thanks. > > However, the IETF policy stated in RFC2804 says > > "1. Summary position > > The IETF has decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as > part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards." > > so while this issue may affect actual deployment scenarios, it can't > directly affect our protocol design requirements here.
Thanks for pointing this out. The redirect mechanism we have been discussing in this thread actually provides a policy control point to the operator, in that the operator can configure its routers to either send or not send the redirects in accordance with its policy. None of this needs to be dealt with in the protocol designs, which deal only with mechanisms. > (I would suggest that statements of agreement or disagreement with > this IETF policy don't belong on this list.) Understood. Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
