February 2004 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Great - spammer learning from viruses [Fwd: become and larger man...]
by Steve Withers 19 Feb '04

19 Feb '04

I wasn't happy to see SPAM arrive with what is probably Rory's real e-mail address.....spoofed just like a virus would. Steve

2 1

OT: VoIP <-> PSTN gateway operators in NZ
by Neil Simmonds 18 Feb '04

18 Feb '04

Hi, Sorry for the OT post, Is there anyone in NZ operating (in production, or close to it) a VoIP to PSTN gateway? Preferably SIP based? If so, could they email me, or email me a contact from the company?. Im looking for an allready established network rather than creating my own (expensive :o) Cheers Rob You could try iHug or WorldxChange They both have real customers on VoIP, their own soft-switches and PSTN connections. Neil

1 0

NZNOG BGP'04 Wrapup
by Jamie Curtis 16 Feb '04

16 Feb '04

Hi all, After much delay we have managed to update the NZNOG conference website at: http://www.nznog.org We now have up all the slides which we were able to get hold of, some simple statistics on the network usage over the term of the conference and the photos which were taken during the conference. Apologies for the quality of the photos, we didn't have appropriate gear for the size of the venue, but most importantly we lacked competent photographers ! :) Enjoy ! Jamie

1 0

Beer
by Andy Linton 16 Feb '04

16 Feb '04

Please note that despite the subject line of Beer this message may be in breach of NZNOG AUP: 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. Of course you may recognise yourself in the following. ------- How many group/list posters does it take to change a light bulb? 1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs 53 to flame the spell checkers 41 to correct spelling/grammar flames 6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive 2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp" 15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct 156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation of their "acceptable use policy" 109 to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb group 203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and lightbulb group about changing light bulbs be stopped 111 to defend the posting to this group saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this group 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty 27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's 3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group 33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too" 12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy 19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three" 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ 44 to ask what is a "FAQ" 4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?" 143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs" 1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again....

4 3

OT: VoIP <-> PSTN gateway operators in NZ
by Robert McDonald 12 Feb '04

12 Feb '04

Hi, Sorry for the OT post, Is there anyone in NZ operating (in production, or close to it) a VoIP to PSTN gateway? Preferably SIP based? If so, could they email me, or email me a contact from the company?. Im looking for an allready established network rather than creating my own (expensive :o) Cheers Rob

2 1

Re: Telecom and Jetstream
by Anaru Hartley 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

> So what? Your response would be the perfect Telecom response <read, > irrelevant>. The cost of buying and installing 2000 DSlams in NZ is not > likely to be different by more than a couple of percent to the cost of > installing 30000 DSlams in Mexico. The cost of copper cable is pretty much > the same anywhere. The difference in consumer pricing is the amount Telecom > takes as "profit" compared to other telcos... My message was not intended to be pro or anti Telecom. All I was suggesting is that out of 100,000,000 people only 3,500,000 use the Internet -- maybe there is something wrong -- what I was emplying is that we probably need 100Mbit connections running into our homes OR MAYBE people just don't need that 100Mbit connection. (using statistics; if 3.5 million of a population as big as Mexico's use the Internet, per person we have a much greater demand for innovation -- or not) My previous comments were more of a "serious sarcasim" aimed towards Telecom. I trust that makes sense. Anaru

1 0

TUANZ submission to Paul Swain, re the ComCom report on unbundling
by Juha Saarinen 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

http://snipurl.com/4ecb I'll go and post this to the ADSL Intarweb mailing site www.unixathome.org/adsl as well. -- Juha

1 0

RE: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked?
by Finnigan, Jamie (NZ - Wellington) 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

> From: Matthew Poole [mailto:matt(a)p00le.net] > Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 1:15 p.m. > Subject: Re: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked? > > What's this "Speed MAY be reduced" (emphasis mine) bull? We all know that Telecom will > throttle you back to dialup speeds the second you touch that 10GB cap. I notice they > don't say what they'll throttle it back to, so you can be certain that it will be a > decidedly unattractive speed - 32kbit/s, anyone? Where does this idea of of the customer deserving flatrate broadband for peanuts come from? Telecom are not a charity. Flatrate internet will always be 'taken advantage of'[1] by a minority, and Telecom are in the position where they are able to do something about this. I personally like the idea of having a permanent connnection, with a cap that I'm unlikely to hit, but with the knowledge that if I do hit the cap then (a) my connection will no be disabled altogether and (b) I'm not going to be hit with huge excess usage charges. This is a marked improvement in contrast to pricing plans they've provided in the past, and they appear to have listened to what their customers have been asking for. Good on ya, Telecom. But I guess there will always be complainers.. :) Jamie [1] feel free to replace with 'abused', 'used as it should be', 'enjoyed', and any other term you wish according to your own viewpoint. -- CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is both confidential and possibly legally privileged. No reader may make any use of its content unless that use is approved by Deloitte separately in writing. Any opinion, advice or information contained in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is to be treated as interim and provisional only and for the strictly limited purpose of the recipient as communicated to us. Neither the recipient nor any other person should act upon it without our separate written authorisation of reliance. Deloitte is a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is a Swiss Verein (association), and, as such, neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other's acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names "Deloitte," "Deloitte & Touche," "Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu," or other related names. Services are provided by the member firms and not by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein. If you have received this message in error please notify us immediately and destroy this message. Thank you. Deloitte Internet: www.deloitte.co.nz

10 14

Conference Videos
by Richard Naylor 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

NZNOG Conference videos now available at www.r2.co.nz/20040129 rich

1 0

RE: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked?
by rob.edkins＠axon.co.nz 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

When I were 't lad, 'Broadband' was a technical term that meant simply a telecommunication medium that allowed a wide range of frequencies you could multiplex multiple channels down simultaneously. :-) Some other definitions: Newton's Telecom Dictionary: "...greater than a voice grade line of 3 KHz...some say [it should be at least] 20 KHz." Jupiter Communications: at least 256 Kbps. IBM Dictionary of Computing: A broadband channel is "6 MHz wide." Tannenbaum: "Broadband is used largely as a marketing rather than a technical term" [referring to DSL technology] > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Naylor [mailto:richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz] > Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 22:34 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] New Telecom Jetstream Plans Leaked? > > > At 07:48 p.m. 9/02/2004 +1300, James White wrote: > > > Where does this idea that 256K is broadband come from? > > > >I thought it was something set by Telecom? > > who ever "set" it is crazy. Its anything above 2mbps. Before > "broadband", > you could get a 2mbps cct, so for the "new" thing it has to > be better. > Hence 2+ mbps, and in my thinking only really kicks in around 30mbps. > -- The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is CONFIDENTIAL and may be exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you read this message and are not the addressee you are notified that use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. You should scan this message and any attached files for viruses. Axon accepts no liability for any loss caused either directly or indirectly by a virus arising from the use of this message or any attached file.

1 0