November 2004 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Request for historical info
by Barry Murphy 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi, I'm trying to gather some data of prices of the internet for the last 10+ years. What I'm looking for is the following for every year you can remember: Year: Monthly hours: ISP price: Product: ADSL/Dial-up Telecom rental price: Any further historical info would be great too, i.e. when the internet was first introduced as a commercial product in NZ, etc. Please reply off list, I'll be publishing the info and advising at a later stage. Thanks Barry

1 1

RE: [nznog] What characterises an NGN?
by Donald Neal 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] > Sent: Monday, 29 November 2004 12:43 p.m. > To: NZ NOG > Subject: [nznog] What characterises an NGN? > > Wrote a bit about Telecom's NGN variant here: > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/C740B2DD592E9EDDCC256 > F58000FBD33 > > I'm curious as to what the NOG thinks of this approach. If I look at: > > http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/next_gen/ > > an NGN is defined as: > > "The next-generation network seamlessly blends the public switched > telephone network (PSTN) and the public switched data network (PSDN), > creating a single multiservice network. [...]" > > Is it fair to assume that pushing CO functionality to the > network edge > requires an end-to-end managed solution? There seem to be three different questions here. The first concerns what an NGN is. Once upon a time telcos ran phone networks. When they added data services, like X.25, they built separate networks to provide those services. An NGN is about putting together the necessary bits to build a network which carries voice and data over one network instead of several. The pieces tend to include an MPLS core, aggregation devices, and so on. It's tempting to say that they're standard hardware rather than the high-cost proprietary stuff telcos used in the past. But in real life there aren't many really big Junipers outside the carrier space. Anyway, the key point about it is that a telco only has one of it, which provides a range of services. There will be cases where limitations to equipment may dictate how a service can be provided, and others where the telco has some choices. "What the NOG thinks of this approach" may well be influenced by what it is an approach to. It's not clear to me, looking at the article, wha the service is that's being decribed. If the service in question is multipoint VPN's, then it seems to me to make perfect sense that customer routing information has to be shared with the carrier. Otherwise how would the carrier's provider edge routers work out where to send the customer's packets? If the service is point to point tunnelling, that's a different matter. As to whether pushing CO functionality to the network edge requires an end-to-end managed solution, I suspect the real-life answer to be "yes". But with a couple of provisos. The first is that 'end-to-end' for a carrier may not be the same as 'end-to-end' for the customers of the carrier, or for the customers of the customers of a carrier. If a telco is going to sell multiple services over a single piece of wire carrying IP packets, it does make sense for the telco to apply whatever shaping, policing etc, policies it's going to use at the customer premises. I don't immediately see how that could be done without putting a telco-administered box at the customer's premises. But if "A customer can choose to tag their own traffic to the correct QoS value, or Telecom can do this for them in the endpoints", then presumably a customer can mark their own traffic and then have Telecom's box on their premises act simply as Telecom's check that their marking matches whatever the service is supposed to be. The second proviso is really the previous question again. It's quite possible to run lower-quality services over the same, or most of the same infrastructure. I'd be very surprised to see all customers getting the same level of management regardless of what they're paying. All opinions mine only. All comments relate to telco networks in general except where I quote the original article. - Donald Neal Donald Neal |Hydrangea - warning by the Lone Technical Specialist | Ranger's colleague NGN Operations | Integration & Services Division +----------------------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has no king, president or formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. Conference Our next annual conference is to be hosted by the WAND group in Hamilton on February 2nd to 4th, 2005. That's just over three months away. See http://www.nznog.org/ for more information, including a list of confirmed presenters which keeps growing. We've also confirmed that APNIC are to offer a day of "Internet Resource Management Essentials" training on Wednesday, 2nd February. Look for registration to open next week. Other Meetings See http://auckland.thursdaynightcurry.com/ or http://wellington.thursdaynightcurry.com/ if you live in or near Auckland or Wellington. Operators' Contact List See http://www.usenet.net.nz/noc/ for operational contact details for most New Zealand ISP's. These are intended for use by other network operators, not by most customers. Internet Exchanges See http://www.nzix.net.nz/ for details of the Auckland, Palmerston North and Wellington exchanges, and some information on others under construction. About This Mailing List This list has around 750 addresses subscribed. You may only post to the list from a subscribed address. A number of people subscribe addresses which do not receive email purely to allow posting from them. You may choose to receive postings as they come in, or just to receive daily "digests". See the bottom of the page http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog/ to change the form in which you receive postings. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by employees of Alcatel NZ Ltd, Citylink and Telecom. None of these organisations, nor any 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. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. 10. A person repeatedly breaching list etiquette shall receive warnings from the list administrator. A further breach after the second such warning within thirty days shall result in the offender being unsubscribed from the list. Other action may also be taken to block postings to the list by the offender. Any such unsubscription is to be immediately announced to the list. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/ Any message sent to the list will be archived and made available on the web automatically. Changes are not made to the archive on request, though the administrators remain happy to assist the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should any complaint be laid with that office. One way to search the archive is to use google and prefix your search with site:list.waikato.ac.nz . Subscribing to the List See http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog to subscribe. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Windows 2000/2003 Strangeness
by Geraint Jones 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

Go gently on me this is probably considered off topic but I can think of nowhere else to post this hardware background : I have 2 windows boxes and a Linux box connected to my internal LAN and to the internet, all 3 have 2 nic's problem : the windows boxes disappear from the internet intermittently for 2 mins or so every now and then and suddenly come back, there is nothing in the event logs' the boxes just disappear for a bit. however the Linux box stays visible all the time. all 3 machines are connected via the same router. I can see nothing wrong with any of the servers and this is making me pull my hair out, any thoughts welcome Cheers Geraint

2 1

Prefix update for Maxnet
by Alastair Johnson 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

Hello, Please add 203.89.160.0/19 to your prefix-list for maxnet. APE: 192.203.154.86 WIX: 202.7.0.116 ASN: 9889 thanks! aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706

1 0

RE: [nznog] Hector Protector
by Donald Neal 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

> Simon Lyall wrote: > > Why not just press "Windows logo key"-L ? > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=294317 > > It doesn't bring up a cute Disney/Neverland style > anthropomorphic animal > and only works with Windows XP (and keyboards with a Windows > key, which > admittedly most have nowadays). > > Also, you can't launch it with a biggus marketing campaign either... This thread seems to have exhausted its relevant content. - Donald Neal Donald Neal |Hydrangea - warning by the Lone Technical Specialist | Ranger's colleague NGN Operations | Integration & Services Division +----------------------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Hector Protector
by Peter Macaulay 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

Off topic, but be charitable. Netsafe have launched their cybersafety ambassador http://www.netsafe.org.nz/hector_protector/hector_protector_default.aspx Please give it a work out. It is pretty important that they have this right, the last thing we want it to have a kid's safety tool able to be hi-jacked. I am happy to pass on comments. -- Peter Macaulay Executive Director InternetNZ Direct +64 4 495 2113 Skype petermacaulay Mobile +64 21 488 485 -- Peter Macaulay Executive Director InternetNZ Direct +64 4 495 2113 Skype petermacaulay Mobile +64 21 488 485

7 8

The Lycos "anti spam screen saver"
by Juha Saarinen 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4051553.stm Tempting as it may be to fight abuse with abuse... it doesn't seem right. -- Juha

3 2

What characterises an NGN?
by Juha Saarinen 28 Nov '04

28 Nov '04

Wrote a bit about Telecom's NGN variant here: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/C740B2DD592E9EDDCC256F58000FBD33 I'm curious as to what the NOG thinks of this approach. If I look at: http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/next_gen/ an NGN is defined as: "The next-generation network seamlessly blends the public switched telephone network (PSTN) and the public switched data network (PSDN), creating a single multiservice network. Rather than large, centralized, proprietary switch infrastructures, this next-generation architecture pushes central-office (CO) functionality to the edge of the network. The result is a distributed network infrastructure that leverages new, open technologies to reduce the cost of market entry dramatically, increase flexibility, and accommodate both circuit-switched voice and packet-switched data." Is it fair to assume that pushing CO functionality to the network edge requires an end-to-end managed solution? -- Juha

4 4

Re: Fw: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp
by Ewen McNeill 28 Nov '04

28 Nov '04

In message <Pine.LNX.4.56.0411281830110.22205(a)green.darkmere.gen.nz>, Simon Lyall writes: >Currently I can get a domain for less than $US 20 per year and that will >get injected in the "DNS routing table" of every provider in the world. >I fail to see why a block of IP addresses should cost more. (a) scarcity: the number of possible IP addresses (4 billion) is rather less than the number of possible domain names (37 ** 63 per name segment) (b) impact on other people's systems: a DNS delegation just sits quitely on a couple of DNS servers in a corner, minding its own business, until someone happens to ask about it; a prefix advertised into the global routing table ends up occupying space in every router in the world with a "full table" and being shuttled around between them fairly often. More DNS delegations means bigger hardware at Verisign (or whoever); more prefixes (eventually) means bigger hardware for all routers that make up the Internet. 2 ** 24 (all possible /24s advertised) is a big number, even at only 64 bytes per routing entry (2 ** 30 bytes of memory). (c) volume: a block of IP addresses consists of multiple addresses; at the US$1250/year mark, that's over 1000 usable addresses. If you were to get 1000 $20 domain names, it'd cost more than US$1250/year :-) (d) scale: the many millions of .com domain names pay for the registry; the few thousand APNIC members need to pay for APNIC to run With all that said, I do sympathise with those with smaller-than-/22 requirements for whom portability and/or the ability to multihome would be useful. And if there's some appropriate way that smaller applications can be fitted within APNIC's requirements it'd be worth considering. However my recollection of what the University of Waikato was doing was that it was largely making allocations along the lines of the proposed "national internet registry" -- at least from the point of view of those receiving the allocations -- and 10 years later, it didn't turn out quite as smoothly as one might have hoped. So if it is done some thought will need to be given as to how one will ensure the "portable" assignments will remain "portable" for an extended period of time. Ewen

3 4