November 1998 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Regarding tomorrow's meeting
by Robert Hunt 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

Tena koe NZNOG, My apology to tomorrow's meeting. I am unable to be in Auckland at that time. As I am unable to be there I do now want to contribute a note on the matter of impacts created specifically for longer standing ISPs where the routing of a single Class C subnet is altered such that they have only ONE choice of NSP. I do not believe that the meeting will be so foolhardy as to agree to create a high level of disruption for my company and others in similar situations as I anticipate that there is enough awareness of the probable ramifications politically and legally. It is obviously unwise to create a serious disruption or to "be seen to limiting the basic commercial choice of an ISP to purchase different upstream services". However I think I should give you some detail of the type of impact there would be at an older ISP (taken from what would happen at mine) if NSP agreement is arrived at to act in this manner. This is a helpful step towards giving the meeting full information. Situation: A well used Class C that is not part of larger block beholden to the ISP. The Class C has been used rather fully for 5 years Customer connections of the following kind operative under it: Domestic and Business customers still operating statically configured softwares from earlier days of setups. N.B. this significantly predates the operations of entities like Xtra and Clearnet and therefore there may be those connected to these operations who do not have an appreciation of this dimension. We are referring to Older trumpet winsock, older MacTCP, Also however on the network concerned there are significant numbers of customers operating dialup masquerading/routing solutions that require a site visit and some hours of work to alter, dialup SMTPs that expect static allocation i.e.- to know their own IP in advance of connecting. So in the case of this operation if this class C is not independently routed EITHER we cannot change NSP OR I am talking about several hundred customers to appease if the routing is withdrawn ...given that most customers will not quite understand a message telling them to "reconfigure the IP settings of their software or fail to connect". How do I deal with the consequent level of disruption compressed into a few hours? One cannot. If an ISP makes a monumental screw up such as in the Xtra password debacle then they only have themselves to look to for how to cope with the support impact. If however the cause is arguably from new policies of NSPs imposed without agreement from the ISP and the result is scores of businesses and many private users suddenly without connection - .,. then this will be a very problematic situation even if both the ISP and their customers had been given technical notice of a change. So how can an ISP prepare when faced with the probability of this situation? Obviously one can spend on and implement an IP translation setup for all one's dialup traffic to be run through, or one can setup a separate dialup zone and start to move customers who will not need the translation to dialling that zone. Changing a phone number seems to be within customer reach of comprehension and "self responsibility" given due notice. IP configurations however are more often NOT viewed that way by the dialling public.. unfortunately. The ISP end of the option to do translation for all or part of the network is an elaborate commitment and costly and doing it this way is not something that we would like to see without seeing first that effort had been made practically, politically and legally to avoid having to take such steps. This is the extent of my thinking on emergency means to cope with a renumbering. If someone out there has a technical solution I am not aware of then please do share that here. Most people who have actually heard us out on the sheer moment of such changes in terms of hours and cost end up thinking more carefully around the issues than before hearing such a description. I strongly hope that this is true of the majority attending tomorrow's meeting and advise the meeting that you should be sure not to ignore the interests of long established ISPs. Their situation is NOT to be compared with the impact of renumbering for some situation like a law firm with 40 PCs. The additional impact for an ISP is that they have multiple arrows of responsibility to customer situations where they do not have much control. The business losses for an ISP can be quite significant here and as for many of us the NSP supplier is also a competing ISP os there would be quite a sting to the media tail that would emerge if this matter is "forced" through mainly by the will of the NSP players. In general I wish you a productive meeting where policies for overall effectiveness of national route management are arrived at that set new guidelines for new players. Robert Hunt --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

None
by Donald Neal 24 Nov '98

24 Nov '98

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has neither a king, a president nor a formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. (At last count the list had 61 subscribers.) The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations (nor the administrator) is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ To search the archive, see http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/search.html (and remember to select nznog). Subscribing to the List To subscribe to the NZNOG list, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz, where the body of the message reads subscribe nznog There are at present no restrictions on who may subscribe to the list, or even on who may post to the list. Digest Mailing List If you don't wish to receive postings as they are sent, you can instead subscribe to the nznog-digest mailiing list, on which all postings are sent out in a single "digest" every couple of days. Other Activities NZNOG does not at present have other regular activities than this mailing list, though some Auckland subscribers have been known to arrange meetings over beer. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Herald Article
by Joe Abley 22 Nov '98

22 Nov '98

What's this Herald article all about? The confusing one on the front page that talks about people snooping passwords using a virus? :) Anybody actually know what has triggered this? Or is the Herald just trying to get a bit more hacker-related airtime following IHUG's alleged attack? -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Communications Ltd http://www.clear.net.nz/ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

NZNOG meeting.
by Roger De Salis 22 Nov '98

22 Nov '98

It looks like we may be able to move the ISOCNZ council meeting to Dec 11th, so the NOG meeting will go ahead on Friday 27th Nov, at Cisco Auckland (25th Floor, ASB Tower) 10am start. I still have NO REPLIES FROM ANYONE ABOUT NUMBERS so some useful use of email in the short term would be appreciated. Rgds Roger De Salis Andy Linton wrote: > > Unfortunately, I've arranged several other things in Auckland for > Thursday/Friday and it would be hard for me to change at this point. A > number of other people have also committed to Friday at this stage as > well. -- \_ Roger De Salis Cisco Systems NZ Ltd </' +64 25 481 452 L3, 117 Customhouse Qy /) +64 4 473 4912 Wellington, New Zealand (/ roger(a)desalis.gen.nz rdesalis(a)cisco.com ` --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 22 Nov '98

22 Nov '98

2 1

Humble Apologies (and Shameless Cross-Posting)
by Joe Abley 22 Nov '98

22 Nov '98

Apologies to all and sundry for not being more proactive with any additions to my earlier draft document regarding NZGATE portability/ aggregation issues. I've been tied up with various hairy issues, and the revised draft kept dropping off the end of the queue. Maybe I should increase my hold threshold. Of those who attended the ISOCNZ face-to-face, perhaps someone could give a summary of the section in which the NZGATE numbering issues were discussed? I will make another undertaking (hopefully not quite so worthless) to summarise the discussions following my earlier document, and to modify the draft appropriately in time for the NZNOG meeting at Cisco NZ on the 27th. [Warning, warning: this message is crossposted to NZNOG and ISOCNZ-L - please modify your headers on reply as appropriate to avoid unnecessary cross- pollination] -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Communications Ltd http://www.clear.net.nz/ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by Rowan Smith 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

From: Don Stokes <don(a)daedalus.co.nz> >No. The /20 supernet continues to be advertised, and the new /24 net >is also advertised. Since the /24 advertisement is more specific, >traffic is routed to it; if it's not inside the /24 but inside the /20, >the less specific route is used. Holes are all well and good, but they create greater administration nightmares. For example at Waikato, holes in 202.36.0.0/16 have created nightmare access lists and administration overhead (not to mention CPU overhead) to prevent end user traffic from re-using NetGates international capacity when a 202.36.x.x/24 network for some reason disappears from the advertisers backbone the traffic defaults back to NetGate due to the /16. It is obvisouly a much greater problem at Waikato due to the open nature of the exchange, but I am sure that as network complexity continues to ... complex:) this will cause problems for other providers. -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Hi. > NZGATE/Waikato has a little piece of paper which said they owned > these addresses? I meant that NZGATE addresses (those identified in Joe's document as NZGATE addresses) belong to those to whom they were issued. > Illegal - which law or laws would be in violation here? There are likely several. It's one of the reasons i earlier suggested a legal opinion would be appropriate. It makes little sense to suggest a policy that would likely be overtuned by the courts. However, there are many forms a policy could take that would make this unnecessary. > Which 'improvements in routing software' are we talking about here? Most specifically dampening. > but more routes is going to lead to more human errors > and more complicated access-lists, etc. It's already outside human built lists (which are always error prone) in many if not almost all circumstances. We'll see better tools and life will get easier in spite of a growing number of routes and peering relationships. > Was 202/8 initially not divided up into much large chunks (eg. /20)? No. 202/8 was in use before provider based addressing was introduced. Several (of the earliest) NZ ISPs have /24's in 202/8 direct from APNIC that are outside the NZGATE addresses. APNIC issued /24's all over the asia-pacific region out of 202/8 without country specific aggregation. Only later did they move to provider based addressing within 202/8. > Nobody should be forced to renumber (unless there network is very > small, say /28), but there should be mechanisms which encourage this > when appropriate. Anything longer than /24 is not very routable (Sprint for one doesn't accept routes longer than /24), so /24 is the usable limit. I have no problem with a statement saying blocks smaller than /24 are not portable. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by Chris Wedgwood 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

> > Most specifically dampening. > > I don't think that makes routing faster or easier, it just makes life > easier for people when bad things might otherwise happen. Dampening was introduced to mitigate the effects (like 100% CPU load) route flapping had on hardware resources. Things like cache invalidation caused by route flaps certainly directly affect routing performance. > But you beleive that any /24 route should be considered completely > portable in most circumstances? Not at all. /24's where ownership is rightly assumed and where the /24 is in a block where the minimum allocation size was /24. For the NZGATE addresses we are asking that the minimum allocation size be recognised as /24. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Hi. > I think the first step in this is to get the "ownership" issues aired (I > don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference tomorrow; at > least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what various positions are. > I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be really proceeded on without > that. Agreed. Since Iprolink will not have a representative attending the ISOCNZ conference. I will state our company's position on ownership: 1) ownership of NZGATE addresses belong to the company to which they were assigned. In the case of ISPs sub-assigning blocks, this may be a contractual matter between the ISP and the client; 2) NZGATE addresses include only those previously noted and within 202/8; and 3) we would view attempts by a group of NZ ISPs to block or otherwise restrict portability of the NZGATE addresses as illegal. I've already discussed some of the technical issues surrounding this matter, i'll repeat them. Some of this represents our position on technical issues: 1) in 1995 there was very valid concern that because routing table growth was outstriping router CPU and memory growth that is was only a matter of time before major routing problems developed; 2) the introduction of CIDR, minimum allocations sizes (no new assignments longer than /19), and improvements in routing software, have slowed router table memory and CPU requirements to much less than improvements in technology are delivering and can be expected to deliver. In short, the changes have removed any _need_ to introduce further changes and in fact indicate a relaxing of rules is more likely; 3) The only route filtering occurring on the Internet today that affects connectivity (i.e. backbones with no default route) is being done on /8's where the minimum allocation size is /19. With half the root nameservers on /24's, wholesale short prefix filtering will not occur in the short term. Attempts to predict long term policy are not valid. 4) The NZGATE addresses are in a /8 block where the minimum allocation size was /24; 5) With 40,000+ routes, it's hard to make a case that the addition of several hundred routes due to migration is significant (more than several hundred additional routes are unlikely because of aggregation and the likelyhood of distribution tending to favor a few ISPs). And with regard to policy: 1) Iprolink would support a public statement which encourages migration to new addresses (by explaining the benefits) where it would not tend increase use of address space. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2