November 1998 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

new version of caida tool for capacity planning/trend analysis
by k claffy 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

per Barry Greene's request to forward to some of the Asian groups, the following was posted to nanog earlier this week: >From kc Mon Nov 16 15:01 PST 1998 Received: (from kc(a)localhost) by caida.org (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA21116; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:01:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981116150126.A18088(a)caida.org> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:01:26 -0800 From: k claffy <kc(a)caida.org> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: new version of caida tool for capacity planning/trend analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: RO Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 36 heads up to ISPs into operational measurement of workload characteristics cflowd 2.0 code is now available for use in analyzing export-flows from ciscos http://www.caida.org/Tools/Cflowd/ software collects output from cisco's netflow export then aggregates the data in ISP-engineering relevant ways as-to-as matrices ( --> peering engineering) net-to-net matrics ( --> peering/routing engineering ) port and protocol tables ( --> capacity engineering, what traffic is your infrastructure supporting, how is it changing, how much of it elastic/optimizable/ hyperzealous/cache-able/etc ) other stuff ( and continually adding features for members, plus src available for your own footloose entertainment ) cflowd 2.0 is a redesign of cflowd 1.3b2 and includes arts++ for storage as well as significant improvements in user interfaces and functionality. details on the code and mail lists are available at the website, or by contacting cflowd's developer, daniel mcRobb, at dwm(a)caida.org think you'll like always seeking your feedback/experience, k --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

legal issues, courts etc
by Don Stokes 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Chris writes: >The industry we are in and technology we work with is comparatively >new and most legal systems are doing an very poor job and keeping up >with the state of things and hence their abilities to make >`reasonable' decisions and pass reasonable legislation in woefully >inadequate (this isn't a slight against the people involved, these >things take time). <sigh> Civil law has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. It's entirely to do with what is agreed (or not agreed) between parties and what the contractual obligations and liabilities are. And the place to sort those issues out, where a binding ruling is needed bacause voluntary negotiation has failed, is the court. It's one of things that helps make our society work. It's not going to go away. It doesn't take a technically oriented judge to say "you don't have a contract that says you can do this so you can't do this". Technical issues may be factors to take into account in evidence, but they're not points of law, and as such generally don't need to be enshrined in law. I think the opposition to the Rogers bill demonstrated that. I don't really want to get into a debate about philosophy of law and technology on a technical list, but I do think it needs to be pointed out that there are contractual issues on all sides of the problem at hand that need to be taken into account. -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 2

Re: your mail
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Chris Wedgwood wrote:- >Not wishing to comment on other details, I will point out the claims >like `court action is a useful last resort' are bullshit. Legal action is a completely reasonable solution where two parties cant agree and all other options have been exausted. That is why we have the courts. The fact that IP networks may not have featured in court cases to date does not in my view diminish the legal system's capability to deal with a dispute involving such things. This is because the issue is likely to be about a sale and purchase agreement between the upstream provider and their customer. There is no problem with a court ruling on these sorts of things, because they do so every day. What may be a bizzare outcome is if a court rules that a customer has title or some other exclusive right to a particular network, and even orders the NZ upstream provider to route it, International upstream providers outside the reach of a NZ court may still refuse or be unable to route it, so thus it is broke. It may be yours, but you wont want it anymore because it dont work! Another solution is needed. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.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

None
by Don Stokes 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Joe writes: >Then we have a technical, operational and _global_ issue being decided >by a New Zealand court. This is worth avoiding at all costs. While I'm not sure that court action should always be avoided "at all costs" (it's useful as a last resort), I think heading this off at the pass is a good idea. And we have to realise that legal issues will raise their heads -- it's no good coming up with a "technical" solution that can be contested in court, because sure as eggs somebody isn't going to like it. So a position that makes sense technically, contractually and legally needs to be developed. Legally speaking, policy documents from the APNIC (apnic-11) pertaining to the period when most 202/8 assignments were made imply that IP addresses are portable unless explicitly stated otherwise. "Stating otherwise" is an interesting point -- the NetGate contracts being waved around about this time quite explicitly stated that numbers belonged to NetGate -- thus anyone with 202/8 addresses assigned by Waikato U acting as an agent of NetGate after signing such a document have non-portable addresses. (This may be contestable regarding how Waikato's position was or wasn't represented to the end user, but at least there's a bit of paper as a starting point in the argument.) Addresses allocated via UoW prior to the NetGate would appear to me to fall into the "portable" category, since no policy statement was ever issued prior to or at the time of such assignments that contradicts the position stated in the apnic-11 document. (apnic-11 expired in mid '95, but the superseding document wasn't issued until mid '96, which itself doesn't appear to state a position on portability.) I think that adequately sums up the contractual situation, at least in broad terms. Someone tell me if they disagree with that. This I believe is a completely separate issue to the question of how to improve the aggregation of network addresses. /24 prefixes in old blocks are generally regarded as a fact of life, to be addressed as and when possible, but not an issue when addressing overall Internet routing table growth, since the number of these addresses is not increasing. It seems to me that the second side of the issue is whether an ISP can or should route a given address block; after all, it doesn't matter who "owns" the block, if their prospective ISP won't route the address they can't use it. On the other hand, that ISP may lose the business in favour of one that will route the address. So I think a common position on how to migrate users to provider addresses, taking into account the cost of renumbering has to be found, and it can't be a position based on "ownership". The third issue, is whether there is a place for NZ-based allocation of addresses. I'm rather in two minds about that -- I'm not sure NZ really has enough addressing activity to justify an NZ registry, but it still bothers me a little that IP addressing is controlled by an offshore organisation. Comments? -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Re: Let's try to sort the NZgate address questions out
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

>I've arranged with Cisco Systems for a room at their offices, Level 28, >ASB Tower, 135 Albert Street, Auckland at 10:00 am on Friday 27 >November. I've done it this way so that there's something definite for >us to aim at and because I see that Auckland is the most sensible venue >for this. If you are not fixed on a date, can it be the following Friday? I would really like to attend this meeting, but have prior commitments. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

meeting as technical people
by Robert Hunt 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Hello NZNOG, I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question. Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 3

meeting as technical people -Reply
by Donald Neal 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

People, It is important to bear in mind that the use of provider-based addressing is a reality of the Internet's operation, and has been for some years. There are important issues of process regarding the way in which transitions by customers from one service provider to another are handled, but there are in general no issues of ownership to be discussed without major changes to the architecture of the (global) Internet. Issues related to the surviving pre-CIDR addresses need to be kept separate if progress is to be made on them. - Donald Neal (Opinions expressed in this posting may not be those of Telecom NZ Ltd, though if Telecom NZ Ltd are sensible they'll agree with me.) >>> Robert Hunt <roberth(a)plain.co.nz> 18/November/1998 01:05pm >>> Hello NZNOG, I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question. Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog --------- 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: meeting as technical people -Reply
by Robert Gray 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Donald Neal wrote on Wednesday, 18 November 1998: > It is important to bear in mind that the use of provider-based addressing > is a reality of the Internet's operation, and has been for some years. > There are important issues of process regarding the way in which > transitions by customers from one service provider to another are > handled, .......... Hopefully Donald, you will be on hand on the 27th to assist us understand your (and perhaps Telecoms') views and progess towards to a concensus we can all live with? Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz http://www.clearview.co.nz/ Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Numbers, and beer for morning tea.
by Roger De Salis 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Numbers to myself or Andy, I'm sure the fridge is well stocked although Cisco frowns upon us partaking before midday. But I'm sure we could open it for Andy, as an exception. > If you want to attend can you let me know so that I can pass numbers to > Cisco Systems who, as well as providing a meeting place, have kindly > offered to provide refreshments - I'm not sure if that includes beer... -- \_ 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

2 1

RE: Let's try to sort the NZgate address questions out
by Frank March 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Gray [SMTP:bobg(a)clearview.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 5:52 AM > To: 'Andy Linton'; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: RE: Let's try to sort the NZgate address questions out > > Andy Linton wrote on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 > > > I'd like to propose that we meet face to face to try to resolve the > > NZgate address issues. > > While the NZGATE address questions are vitally important to those of us > who > use them, the issue is wider than that in my view. I would like to see a > comprehensive solution for rational address allocation in New Zealand for > the future, that is more than just NZGATE addresses I hope. I would like > this this meeting to be the start of the process. <snip> > It would also be nice to have representation (or at least an observer) > from > ISOCNZ and Telecom. > [FCM] My understanding is that Roger de Salis, who is an ISOCNZ Council member, will be there and will be facilitating. I have for sometime been concerned that this issue, and relationships with APNIC, especially as it becomes part of a 'supporting organisation' for ICANN, should be considered by ISOCNZ to be part of its responsibility for Internet consultation and governance in New Zealand. I will not be attending, Nov 27 is the date of the first meeting of the new ISOCNZ council, and besides I dont qualify ;) Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0