November 2014 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] UFB 1 gig plans for retail and impact they have
by Mark Foster 04 Nov '14

04 Nov '14

Blocking outbound port 25 blocks the vast majority of non authenticated smtp. The remainder being authenticated (or channelled via the same service provider, who can trace you by your IP, dynamic or not), provides some accountability and makes spam much easier to trace... acknowledging that much spam comes from compromised machines on residential grade connectivity (on port 25). Blocking port 25 outbound (with an opt out option) makes sense if you can't quickly deal with offenders on your network (as often seems to be the case with big players). This doesnt the provide those players with an excuse to under-resource abuse@ (as the remaining spam is finding another way out) but this does seem to happen regardless... so its not even close to a silver bullet but it does helo more than hinder. Mark. Sent from a mobile device. -------- Original message -------- From: Steve Holdoway <steve(a)greengecko.co.nz> Date:05/11/2014 14:56 (GMT+12:00) To: Peter Lambrechtsen <Peter.Lambrechtsen(a)spark.co.nz> Cc: nznog <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Re: [nznog] UFB 1 gig plans for retail and impact they have On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 14:14 +1300, Peter Lambrechtsen wrote: > Have to say that blocking inbound port 25 and 53 is highly recommended > for all RSPs. Plus blocking outbound port 25 to only SMTP servers you > run if you wanted a sense of if customers are using their connections > for mass spamming. With an opt out of course. Given that mail servers also listen on 587 ( thanks billg ) and 465, isn't blocking just 25/tcp just a bit pointless? Steve -- Steve Holdoway BSc(Hons) MIITP http://www.greengecko.co.nz Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/steveholdoway Skype: sholdowa _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

3 2

Re: [nznog] An 'end to end' Internet (was Re: UFB 1 gig plans for retail and impact they have)
by Scott Weeks 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

--- mcdonald.richards(a)gmail.com wrote: From: McDonald Richards <mcdonald.richards(a)gmail.com> I should point out that I mean it purely as an "any service to any service from any host to any host" type of scenario :) Maybe I should have phrased it as the days of unfiltered and unfettered provision of default residential services is coming to an end. ------------------------------------------ I hope not. That'd be the beginning of the slow death of the internet innovation we have seen over the past couple of decades. We will be the new dinosaur. Maybe the homenet WG in IETF will come up with something. <crossing fingers> scott > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Re: [nznog] UFB 1 gig plans for retail and impact they have
by Scott Weeks 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

--- ben(a)meh.net.nz wrote: From: Ben <ben(a)meh.net.nz> My biggest concern ATM over DDOS, is when IPV6 starts becoming widely used - a lot of people use NAT as a firewall, and when they implement IPV6 don't protect their hosts properly. --------------------------------------------- Homenet in the IETF is attempting to address that among other things in the home networks: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/homenet/charter <quote> End-to-end communication is both an opportunity and a concern as it enables new applications but also exposes nodes in the internal networks to receipt of unwanted traffic from the Internet. Firewalls that restrict incoming connections may be used to prevent exposure, however, this reduces the efficacy of end-to-end connectivity that IPv6 has the potential to restore. Home networks need to provide the tools to handle these situations in a manner accessible to all users of home networks. Manual configuration is rarely, if at all, possible, as the necessary skills and in some cases even suitable management interfaces are missing. The purpose of this working group is to focus on this evolution, in particular as it addresses the introduction of IPv6, by developing an architecture addressing this full scope of requirements: o prefix configuration for routers o managing routing o name resolution o service discovery o network security </quote> scott _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] CloudFlare Peering Blog
by McDonald Richards 02 Nov '14

02 Nov '14

Mobile in Australia is an oligarchy. Since the collapse of ISPone there seems to be an active effort being put in by the 3 mobile carriers (Telstra, Optus, VHA) to protect their margins and make it as difficult as possible for MVNOs to start up. Prepaid plans should not be that expensive - I have had worse experiences in Germany. Your home Internet is a different story. The caps exist to support the limited resource. Unlimited has been tried and is always abused. The wholesale access charges within Australia require ISP's set limits or it's the same as everyone leaving their taps running and lights on. Cloudflare's experience with Australian bandwidth pricing will be related to the costs charged by the tier 1 carriers (Optus, Telstra and AAPT [note: AAPT may have started peering; I am a little out of the game there now]). They will be seeking direct access to eyeballs and being charged for the privilege, much the same as the issues Netflix is facing with eyeball carriers in the USA. On the cost front, the underlying delivery cost for some of these networks is higher, as they try to keep consistent pricing across all regions of Australia. People in small towns pay the same prices as people in the largest cities. The country is big and the population density is low. Contrast that to Europe, and carriers there have a much easier time making money. Despite all of this, negotiating peering (paid or otherwise) in Europe with their incumbent carriers is just as difficult and costly as in Australia :) - unless you are Cloudflare-size and have hit that critical mass of outbound content that makes you attractive to these incumbents. Macca On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Petri Ojala <petri.ojala(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We spend our winter in Sydney. While not directly related to the carrier > bandwidth costs, my mobile charges will triple and broadband internet cost > will be seven fold. > > In addition to the increased costs the services will be slower and I’m > getting data caps, which I don’t have in Europe. The offerings are > crippled by mandatory landlines, 24-month contracts and various other > requirements and fees. While one can get Telstra Cable without a minimum > contract, it comes with a mandatory landline that has penalties if > terminated too early. I won’t even go into details about the customer > experience getting the broadband.. > > I think it tells a story if CloudFare pays the same amount for Australia > as they do for all of Europe. I was actually thinking about buying Telstra > stock simply because it’s de-facto monopoly in the country and not much > light at the other end of the tunnel. > > Petri > > On 3 November 2014 at 10:14:21, McDonald Richards ( > mcdonald.richards(a)gmail.com) wrote: > > Keep in mind that this refers to "Benchmark pricing" with $10 being the > benchmark for the USA. > > Do your own math and draw conclusions from that extrapolation :) > > Macca > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Dean Pemberton <nznog(a)deanpemberton.com> > wrote: > >> Interesting article from CloudFlare... >> >> >> http://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/ >> >> While NZ isn't mentioned I'm picking we get lumped in with Australia >> for which they have this to say... >> >> "Australia >> >> Australia is the most expensive region in which we operate, but for an >> interesting reason. We peer with virtually every ISP in the region >> except one: Telstra. Telstra, which controls approximately 50% of the >> market, and was traditionally the monopoly telecom provider, charges >> some of the highest transit pricing in the world — 20x the benchmark >> ($200/Mbps). Given that we are able to peer approximately half of our >> traffic, the effective bandwidth benchmark price is $100/Mbps. >> >> To give you some sense of how out-of-whack Australia is, at CloudFlare >> we pay about as much every month for bandwidth to serve all of Europe >> as we do to for Australia. That’s in spite of the fact that >> approximately 33x the number of people live in Europe (750 million) >> versus Australia (22 million). >> >> If Australians wonder why Internet and many other services are more >> expensive in their country than anywhere else in the world they need >> only look to Telstra. What's interesting is that Telstra maintains >> their high pricing even if only delivering traffic inside the country. >> Given that Australia is one large land mass with relatively >> concentrated population centers, it's difficult to justify the pricing >> based on anything other than Telstra's market power. In regions like >> North America where there is increasing consolidation of networks, >> Australia's experience with Telstra provides a cautionary tale." >> _______________________________________________ >> NZNOG mailing list >> NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >> > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > >

2 2

CloudFlare Peering Blog
by Dean Pemberton 02 Nov '14

02 Nov '14

Interesting article from CloudFlare... http://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/ While NZ isn't mentioned I'm picking we get lumped in with Australia for which they have this to say... "Australia Australia is the most expensive region in which we operate, but for an interesting reason. We peer with virtually every ISP in the region except one: Telstra. Telstra, which controls approximately 50% of the market, and was traditionally the monopoly telecom provider, charges some of the highest transit pricing in the world — 20x the benchmark ($200/Mbps). Given that we are able to peer approximately half of our traffic, the effective bandwidth benchmark price is $100/Mbps. To give you some sense of how out-of-whack Australia is, at CloudFlare we pay about as much every month for bandwidth to serve all of Europe as we do to for Australia. That’s in spite of the fact that approximately 33x the number of people live in Europe (750 million) versus Australia (22 million). If Australians wonder why Internet and many other services are more expensive in their country than anywhere else in the world they need only look to Telstra. What's interesting is that Telstra maintains their high pricing even if only delivering traffic inside the country. Given that Australia is one large land mass with relatively concentrated population centers, it's difficult to justify the pricing based on anything other than Telstra's market power. In regions like North America where there is increasing consolidation of networks, Australia's experience with Telstra provides a cautionary tale."

3 2

Call for Papers - APRICOT 2015
by Dean Pemberton 02 Nov '14

02 Nov '14

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 24th February - 6th March 2015, Fukuoka, Japan https://2015.apricot.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2015 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for APRICOT 2015. We are looking for presenters who would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; - Convene and chair panel sessions of relevant topics. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=19 CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: 1 November 2014 First Draft Program Published: 6 December 2014 Final Deadline for Submissions: 7 February 2015 Final Program Published: 14 February 2015 Final Slides Received: 21 February 2015 PROGRAMME MATERIAL ------------------ The APRICOT Programme is organised in three parts, including workshops, tutorials and the conference. Topics for tutorials and the conference must be relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and operations - IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Internet backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - IXPs and Peering - Research on Internet Operations and Deployment - Japan Internet - Software Defined Networking / Network Function Virtualisaton - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS, Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including Cable/DSL, 3G/LTE, wireless, metro ethernet, fibre, MPLS - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) and Cloud Computing CfP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CfP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. Prospective presenters should note that the majority of speaking slots will be filled well before the final submission deadline. The PC will retain a limited number of slots up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=19 Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail at: pc-chairs at apricot.net We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Mark Tinka, Raphael Ho & Dean Pemberton Co-Chairs, APRICOT Programme Committee

1 0