[cooperation-wg] Fwd: (CGN) European Commission PQ response

Hi Malcolm, all:

Thanks for sharing this. I encourage anyone interested in this topic and
potential areas of collaboration to check out a session organized by the
RIPE NCC's own Richard Learning at EuroDIG 2017 earlier this month:
https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_on_the_Internet_%E2%80%93_identifying_common_solutions_%E2%80%93_WS_4_2017

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> The Co-operation WG may be interested in the following report of a reply
> by a European Commissioner to a European Parliamentary question about
> Carrier Grade NAT - not least because the reply refers to this WG by name.
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:        (CGN) European Commission PQ response
> Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:37:47 +0000
> From:   Owen Bennett <owen at euroispa.org>
> To:     DG-Euroispa cybersecurity <cybersecurity at euroispa.org>
>
>
>
> Dear EuroISPA Cybersecurity committee,
>
>
> The European Commission has published its answer to a recent European
> Parliament parliamentary question*concerning ISPs’ deployment of CGN
> (carrier-grade network access translation) and the so-called
> ‘going-dark’ problem.*
>
>
> To remind, ISPs are under increasing pressure from law enforcement with
> regard to their use of CGN technology – the fact of putting multiple
> users behind individual IP addresses is said to stifle law enforcement
> investigations of crimes with an online component.
>
>
> The Commission’s response to the parliamentary question is pertinent for
> EuroISPA in that it is one of the first times where the Institution has
> addressed the CGN matter in an official /on the record /capacity.
>
>
> As you will see, the Commission’s response falls short of calling for
> regulatory intervention to limit CGN deployment, and even goes as far as
> to label CGN deployment ‘unavoidable’.
>
>
> We will continue to monitor this matter at EU-level and keep members
> updated.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Owen
>
>
> ***
>
> *Question of MEP Agnew (EFDD, UK), Carrier Grade Network Access
> Translation
> <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%
> 2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2017-001101%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%
> 2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN>,
> 17 February 2017*
>
> /[Europol recently held a meeting to discuss CGN technologies that have
> long been used by ISPs to delay the capex required to extend the current
> pool of IP addresses (CGN technologies are used by ISPs to share one
> single IP address among multiple subscribers at the same time)./
>
> /Does the Commission agree that restricting the continued use of CGN,
> simply on the grounds that Europol finds it inconvenient to monitor, is
> a retrograde step and an unacceptable interference with current
> commercial practice and freedom of technological choice?]/
>
> *Answer given by Commissioner Avramopoulos
> <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?
> reference=E-2017-001101&language=EN>
> on behalf of the European Commission, 26 June 2017  *
>
>
> /[The Commission is aware that law enforcement authorities have raised
> certain concerns regarding the increasing use of Carrier-Grade Network
> Address Translation (CGN) technology. CGN enables a single Internet
> Protocol (IP) address to be shared by potentially thousands or hundreds
> of thousands of subscribers at the same time since there is not enough
> capacity under the current IP version 4 (IPv) to meet demand. This makes
> it technically very difficult for an internet service provider to
> identify an individual subscriber in response to legitimate requests
> from law enforcement authorities. Consequently, it is difficult to
> attribute crime and identify criminals using that particular IP address.
> Europol thus has legitimate concerns regarding CGN or other forms of
> address sharing, which may also have a negative impact on fraud
> detection or intrusion detection systems. They may also have other
> negative consequences, such as overall performance degradation of
> connections or even, in some cases, certain applications not working at
> all.  /
>
> / /
>
> /The expedited deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6)//on a global scale and
> by all stakeholders would mitigate the problems and also offer new
> opportunities to service providers. In the short term, however, the use
> of IPv4 address-sharing is unavoidable, as there are still a significant
> number of users, services and applications that function only with IPv4.
> At the same time, the Commission is not aware of any proposals to
> restrict the continued use of CGN, but rather of efforts being made to
> raise awareness about the issue, share best practices and find ways to
> facilitate the attribution of crime. It intends to raise the issue to
> RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) via its representative who is chairing
> RIPE's Cooperation Working Group.]/
>
>
> ***
>
>
> *Owen Bennett*
>
> Policy Executive
> *EuroISPA - European Internet Services Providers Association *
> Rue du Commerce 124/5 - 1000 Brussels
> T: +32 (0)2 550 41 22
> www.euroispa.org <http://www.euroispa.org/>
>
> Follow us on Twitter *@euroispa <https://twitter.com/euroispa>*
>
>
> *EuroISPA is the world's largest association of Internet Services
> Providers, representing over 2500 ISPs across Europe.*
>
> EU Transparency Register ID Number: 54437813115-56
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20170628/b22ec071/attachment.html>