<div dir="ltr">In residential terms it still has to come from an authenticated hop like a PPPOE session which generally means radius logs with DHCPv6-PD which again creates logs.<div><br></div><div>If them FUD mongers get their way, we should just log to AWS Glacier and make the government pay the retrieval costs[1].</div>
<div><br></div><div>[1] Yes I realise is doesn't work this way, but why should ISP and our customer pay for a legislation that isn't going to stop one threat.<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Mike Taylor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mtaylor@totalteam.co.nz" target="_blank">mtaylor@totalteam.co.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>I was going to say;<br>
<br>
With IPv6 - you allocate a prefix, not an IP address, so perhaps
'Your argument is invalid' might apply in that situation?<br>
<br>
(not you Mark, the lawmakers)<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Mike<div><div class="h5"><br>
<div><br>
</div>
On 11/08/14 13:49, Mark Newton wrote:<br>
</div></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Beeson, Ayden <<a href="mailto:ABeeson@csu.edu.au" target="_blank">ABeeson@csu.edu.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
+1 this. Though they deny it, the user -> IP
listing is the ONLY thing they don't have to start directly
harassing people for Copyright infringement notices sent
from the US media companies.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Notwithstanding that they can never get a “user->IP”
mapping, they can only get a subscriber->IP mapping.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is something they know, having had their arses caned
over it repeatedly in US courts, and having had the full bench
of the High Court in Australia kick them in the face about it in
AFACT v iiNet (so hard they had to change their name to recover
their reputation. "AFACT? Who, us? We don’t know any AFACT…”)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It’s possible to pay someone to continue to believe things
they know to be untrue, and that’s what we have with the
copyright industry and our A-D, and so here we are. The fact
that they earn their money by being professionally wrong doesn’t
mean anyone else has to provide them with the benefit of any
credibility.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Who here is making submissions to the copyright consultation
that closes on 1 Sep?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> - mark</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><div class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>