[AusNOG] Effect of Data Retention regime on smaller ISPs

[Paul Wilkins]

Ross,
The data retention bill makes no consideration of packet switching, so for
its purposes (as currently written) TCP vs UDP makes no difference.

One of the recommendations from PJCIS is that the Metadata Expert Group
work to define a session (#4 & #8) , which for UDP, will be an interesting
exercise.

Paul Wilkins

On 7 March 2015 at 13:33, Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net> wrote:

>
>
>  3. Every time a connection is made to your servers you need to log the IP
>> address and timestamp and be able to search by that.
>>
>> I don't think this is true. I doubt they'll want every NTP or DNS lookup
>> logged. Hopefully it will depend what the Metadata Expert Group
>> recommends.
>> The government would be foolish to push the bill through without their
>> endorsement.
>>
>
> Nit-picking in the extreme, but it's relevant...
>
> NTP and DNS requests in the main are UDP and as such don't *CONNECT* to
> our servers. They send a packet, and they "expect" a reply, but it
> technically isn't a CONNECT (like your typical TCP "connection" to SMTP or
> HTTP servers).
>
> Loophole? Intended get-out clause? I don't know.
>
> R.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150307/cd233653/attachment.html>