- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: BGP over NZIX
by Pieren, Jay 20 Jan '99

20 Jan '99

Hi AgResearch is connected to NZIX as well. We provide services for DRC and MIRINZ. Jay Pieren IT Service Manager Phone: ++64-3-489-9080 AgResearch New Zealand Ltd. Fax: ++64-3-489-3739 Invermay Research Centre Mobile: ++64-25-223-4330 Puddle Alley Private Bag 50034 Mosgiel, Otago New Zealand --------- 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: BGP over NZIX
by Dennis Su 19 Jan '99

19 Jan '99

Joe, KC still has a Cisco 3600 connected to NZIX. It could just be used for route collecting but I am not 100% sure. Cheers, Dennis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Su Msc CNE CCNA Network Engineer, Network Services, ITS, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Tel 64 7 838 4183 Fax 64 7 838 4066 Email d.su(a)waikato.ac.nz > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Wicks [mailto:tonyw(a)iconz.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 12:11 PM > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Cc: jabley(a)clear.co.nz > Subject: Re: BGP over NZIX > > > >Did I miss KC? Many apologies if so; do KC have a router at NZIX? > > > No, KC connects to NZIX via us ( ICONZ ). > > Tony Wicks > Network Engineer, ICONZ > > --------- > 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: BGP over NZIX
by Tony Wicks 19 Jan '99

19 Jan '99

>Did I miss KC? Many apologies if so; do KC have a router at NZIX? No, KC connects to NZIX via us ( ICONZ ). Tony Wicks Network Engineer, ICONZ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

BGP over NZIX
by Joe Abley 19 Jan '99

19 Jan '99

Hi people, I would like to gauge interest in the various exchange members at NZIX making a transition from the current OSPF peering mechanism to a BGP4 mesh. The existing OSPF approach is deficient in several areas - I won't list them, as I think there is general agreement that this is the case. OSPF at NZIX seems to be one of those interim measures that, once established, has been difficult to dispense with. Given the relatively small number of networks which connect to the exchange today there is arguably little need to provide a route server or other facilitating infrastructure - a BGP mesh will likely do the job quite nicely. One more more route servers would allow the exchange to scale in future, however, should the BGP mesh become unwieldly. The people who currently connect at the exchange, and to whom this message has direct relevance, are (in no particular order): + Telecom NZ (AS4648) + Telstra NZ (AS4763) + IBM NZ + ICONZ (AS4770) + ComNet + CLEAR (AS4768) + University of Waikato (AS681) + Webmasters (please let me know if I have missed anybody!). I am raising this in the list as it seems to me that the issue has wider interest - for example, any other organisation who is thinking about colocating equipment at Waikato for interconnect/peering. Some points to think about/comment on: + Everybody who wants to peer with more than one network needs a globally-unique autonomous system number (ASN) for BGP. These are available free of charge from APNIC if you are a member. If a transition to BGP is to go ahead, CLEAR (as an APNIC member) is willing to apply for ASNs for any existing exchange members who need them (for the purposes of this transition). We won't be charging anything for this, and you don't need to be a CLEAR customer (although we _will_ want to peer with you). + Everybody who wants to peer needs a router capable of speaking BGP4. Most routers that can talk OSPF can also talk BGP (BGP is way simpler to code!), but the cisco 1600 series are a notable exception. Is this an issue for anybody? + There is a general perception that BGP is a "hard" protocol to configure. I'm not convinced that BGP is any harder to operate than OSPF, but if there is interest/need I'm happy to provide some reference configurations to anybody who needs them. At least 6 of the members on the list above already use BGP elsewhere in their networks. Climbing into a flame-proof suit (better safe than sorry), Joe --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 1

Countdown to APRICOT - the annual ISP Summit for Asia and Pacific (March 1-5 in Singapore)
by Barry Raveendran Greene 16 Jan '99

16 Jan '99

[Apologies for any duplicates. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APRICOT Registrations open from 4 January 1999 for APRICOT 1-5 March 1999 http://www.apng.org/apricot99/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is APRICOT? ---------------- The annual Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) is an educational, non-profit, conference run by volunteers to develop and maintain Internet operational stability in Asia Pacific Region. APRICOT's Mission is to develop and advance the skills and understanding necessary to grow a robust Internet infrastructure in the Asia Pacific region. APRICOT is about bringing the world's top Internet experts together with those who can benefit from their knowledge. Since 1996, APRICOT has provided a unique and successful forum for those key Internet builders in the region to learn from their peers and other leaders in the Internet community from around the world. The intense week-long summit consists of seminars, workshops, tutorials, conference sessions, birds-of-a-feather (BOFs), and other forums all with the common goal of : + Spreading and sharing the knowledge required for operational stability and development of the Internet within the Asia Pacific region. + Developing affinity groups that foster mutual support throughout the year. APRICOT's success is due to the excellence of its no-nonsense program focused on the operation of the Internet - technical, business, and policy. Its importance is demonstrated by the fact that it is the only conference in which all of the key Internet operations group in Asia and Pacific meet for the annual and semi-annual meetings. Hence, APRICOT is in reality the critical Internet summit for Asia and Pacific. (see below: APRICOT Week Overview) APRICOT is not an Internet Marketing Conference. APRICOT is about bringing true subject matter experts together with those who can benefit from the information the most. APRICOT provides a unique, vendor neutral forum for frank discussions on the skills and technologies that are either at the heart of today's Internet or very likely to see operational deployment within 12 months. It allows attendees to synchronize with the rapid developments in the wider Internet and an opportunity to dispel market "hype". The people who attend APRICOT are the real people building the Internet in the Asia & Pacific region. Many of best Internet engineers and key decision makers attend APRICOT either to teach, present, or do their own "networking". Where to get more information? ------------------------------ It's all up on the web: http://www.apng.org/apricot99/ or http://www.apricot.net APRICOT Stakeholders -------------------- What makes APRICOT so valuable is the number of groups in the Asia & Pacific Internet Community that come together and co-locate their meetings. Here are a few of the groups co-locating activities for APRICOT99. LINUX User Group - The Singapore LINUX Conference 1999. March 5th - 7th. It will be the first time a conference focussing on Linux is being held in Singapore, let alone Asia. http://www.slc99.linux.com.sg/ Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG). APNG is an Internet organization dedicated to the advancement of networking infrastructure in this region, and to the research and development of all associated enabling technologies. Its mission is to promote the Internet and the coordination of Network Inter-Connectivity in the Asia Pacific Region. http://www.apng.org APNG will be having it's annual meetings, tutorials, and conference co-located with APRICOT. Asia & Pacific Security Incident Response Coordination WG (APSIRC). APSIRC WG meeting will be held on the evening of 1 March 1999. For more details, please subscribe to the mailing list apsirc(a)apng.org by sending a message "Subscribe" to apsirc-request(a)apng.org or check the web at http://apsirc.singcert.org.sg/ Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC). The NIC project of APNG has led to the formation in 1993 of the Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC). Since the, APNIC has gained independence of APNG and gone from strength to strength to its recent in corporation in 1996. APNIC will be having it's annual general meeting on March 6th. http://www.apnic.net Asia & Pacific Internet Association (APIA). APNG fostered a Commercial Working Group through the mid-1990s. In 1997, this WG spawned off to become the Asia Pacific Internet Association (APIA) of today. APIA membership spans the Internet trade and business communities of the AP region. http://www.apia.org APIA will be having it's annual general meeting on March 6th. Asia & Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD). In view of the urgent need to coordinate and organize the region's country code Top-Level Domain holders. APNG has initiated with other AP organizations to form the APTLD forum which had held its inaugural meeting in July 1998. http://www.aptld.org APPLe - Asia & Pacific Policy and Legal Forum. To promote and facilitate exchange of information and consultations between the Internet industry and governments and regional/international organizations, with the goal of facilitating the balance between industry self-regulation and government regulation. http://www.apng.org/apple/ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The Internet is undergoing some fundamental administrative changes with respect to Internet Domain Names and Internet Protocol Addresses. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will be having a special meetings and be the #1 topic for the APRICOT Plenary. http://www.icann.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APRICOT (Asia & Pacific Rim Internet Conference on Operational Technologies) Singapore March 1 - 5, 1999 -- The Annual ISP Operations and Business Summit in Asia and Pacific -- http://www.apricot.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

NZNOG - Relevant Events
by Donald Neal 10 Jan '99

10 Jan '99

NZNOG People, If there's enough content for it, I'd like this list ot carry notice of relevant meetings and conferences. Are there any that should be added to these? - Donald Neal January ------- NetWORKS 99: The Third New Zealand ATM and Broadband Workshop Dates: 21-22 January Location: The University of Waikato, Hamilton More: http://byerley.cs.waikato.ac.nz/networks/ April ----- Uniforum NZ '99 Dates: 13-17 April Location: Rydges, Fenton St., Rotorua More: http://www.uniforum.org.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

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 03 Jan '99

03 Jan '99

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 64 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. 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. 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

Banned Newsgroups list?
by Simon Lyall 26 Dec '98

26 Dec '98

Just wondering if anyone has the list of newsgroups that Internal Affairs distributed a while back which ISPs are not advised to carry? I think this was done on an unofficial basis and no-one around here seems to have the actual list. I don't carry a large number of the suspect groups but I want to be sure none have been accidentally added. Any pointers welcome. Also wearing one of my other Hats are any sites interested in exchanging newsfeeds for nz.* newsgroups (plus local posts) with usenet.net.nz? . Currently I'm exchanging feeds with a few large ISPs but more is always better. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Network Admin | Ftpmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz The Internet Group, Auck. | Asst Doorman | Web: Currently Offline --------- 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: missing router
by Richard Naylor 21 Dec '98

21 Dec '98

At 02:30 pm 21/12/98 +1300, you wrote: >3620 or 40 ? sorry should have mentioned that - a 3640 - the bigger of the two rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

missing router
by Richard Naylor 21 Dec '98

21 Dec '98

Hi folks We have had a Cisco 3600 router removed from our premises in an un-authorised manner - it was nicked. If you get offered a real cheap one with the following config please let me know asap. + no system memory (someone else borrowed it !) + 1x 10/100 ethernet port + 18 Voice ports in a mixed config Unfortunately it was not rack mounted, so was easily removed no crow-bar was required. We also lost a diskless 386 - a DECpc320 configured as a Netramet box, and a Compaq 386 running linux as a secondary DNS server. We are very happy to receive any othe the gear back - no questions asked, rather than see it all go into the harbour. Happy Christmas rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Workshop on Broadband Networks January
by John G. Cleary 21 Dec '98

21 Dec '98

Hello, I have included below an adverstisment for a workshop on broadband networksthat will be heldat Waikato University on january 21st and 22nd. If you think this would be of interest to anyone within your comapny or any of your customers could you please circulate it. Thank you, John Cleary John G. Cleary Dept. Computer Science, Ph(work): 64(7)838-4378 University of Waikato, Ph(home): 64(7)855-0965 Te Whare Wananga o Waikato, Fax: 64(7)838-4155 Private Bag 3105, e-mail: jcleary(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz Hamilton, New Zealand URL: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/cs/Staff/jgc.html =================================================== Networks-99 sponsored by WAND (Waikato Applied Network Dynamics) Research Group The University of Waikato 21 - 22 January 1999 On the 21st and 22nd January 1999 the third New Zealand ATM and Broadband Workshop will be held at the University of Waikato in Hamilton. The workshop is a forum for the discussion and dissemination of information, ideas and research into broadband issues, including the Internet. Topics at previous workshops have ranged from connecting a doorbell to an ATM network to the statistics of self-similar traffic on the Internet. The first day of the conference comprises two tutorials entitled "Introduction to TCP/IP" and " The Ubiquitous Internet as Seen from Silicon Valley". The second tutorial will be presented by Dr. David Jefferson from the Compaq Network Systems Laboratory at Palo Alto. The second day will contain presentations from Industry in the morning followed by research papers in the afternoon. The cost is $100 for each tutorial and $50 for the conference itself. For further information see "http://byerley.cs.waikato.ac.nz/networks/", email "mailto:NetWorks(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz" or phone +64 7 838 4021. =========================================== John G. Cleary Dept. Computer Science, Ph(work): 64(7)838-4378 University of Waikato, Ph(home): 64(7)855-0965 Te Whare Wananga o Waikato, Fax: 64(7)838-4155 Private Bag 3105, e-mail: jcleary(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz Hamilton, New Zealand URL: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/cs/Staff/jgc.html --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Advance notice for 1q99 walk
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 21 Dec '98

21 Dec '98

Hi, I appologize for duplicates. Its almost time for the next quarterly walk of the inverse tree of the DNS. For the last few quarters, I've been walking the in-addr tree looking for numbers of delegations, accurate delegations, and types and styles of error conditions. So... this is a heads up that you will be seeing zone transfers being generated by a couple of the collecter machines here. For those of you who utilize BINDs access controls, I'd appreciate your inclusion of the collector machines in allowed transfers. The expectation is that they will be the following IP addresses: 128.9.160.57 and 198.32.4.13 If there are any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to talk about them. Past data has been presented at IEPG, Apricot and RIPE meetings. The expectation is that future data will be presented in the same and similar forums. The expected start date is 01jan99 and it is expected to run through February 1999. The 4q98 and preliminary data for the 1q99 audits will be presented at Apricot99 in Singapore. www.apricot.net for details about this venue. The data will be available via http as well. www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/in-addr-audit.html --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Workshop on Broadband Networks January
by John G. Cleary 20 Dec '98

20 Dec '98

Networks-99 sponsored by WAND (Waikato Applied Network Dynamics) Research Group The University of Waikato 21 - 22 January 1999 On the 21st and 22nd January 1999 the third New Zealand ATM and Broadband Workshop will be held at the University of Waikato in Hamilton. The workshop is a forum for the discussion and dissemination of information, ideas and research into broadband issues, including the Internet. Topics at previous workshops have ranged from connecting a doorbell to an ATM network to the statistics of self-similar traffic on the Internet. The first day of the conference comprises two tutorials entitled "Introduction to TCP/IP" and " The Ubiquitous Internet as Seen from Silicon Valley". The second tutorial will be presented by Dr. David Jefferson from the Compaq Network Systems Laboratory at Palo Alto. The second day will contain presentations from Industry in the morning followed by research papers in the afternoon. The cost is $100 for each tutorial and $50 for the conference itself. For further information see "http://byerley.cs.waikato.ac.nz/networks/", email "mailto:NetWorks(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz" or phone +64 7 838 4021. =========================================== John G. Cleary Dept. Computer Science, Ph(work): 64(7)838-4378 University of Waikato, Ph(home): 64(7)855-0965 Te Whare Wananga o Waikato, Fax: 64(7)838-4155 Private Bag 3105, e-mail: jcleary(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz Hamilton, New Zealand URL: http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/cs/Staff/jgc.html --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation -Document posting comments -Reply
by Michael Newbery 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

> > >>>> Donald Neal <Donald.Neal(a)telecom.co.nz> - 10/12/98 11:57 AM >>> >Craig Anderson at 10/December/1998 10:36am wrote: >[...] >>There are other problems, but i'm not entirely sure of the nature of >>this document, nor it's audience. I suspect Telecom intends to >>distribute this much wider than just to it's clients. The implied >>support from NZNOG for all of the statements contained within bothers >>me. > >I for one hope a document more or less like this is to be widely >distributed. > >In general it's desirable to avoid claiming NZNOG supports things, since >NZNOG isn't an organisation with a process for declaring the >organisation's opinion on something. However, if the meeting minutes >already posted to this list are accurate, many active NZNOG participants >do support the aproach outlined. In that case replacing the existing text >with a reference to "many members of NZNOG" or "acting in consultation >through the New Zealand Network Operators' Group" would make me >happier, but wouldn't make a difference to the average recipient. Which is fine, until it gets reported in the press in a more concise form, as "support from NZNOG" rathrer than the more precise but less snappy "support from many members of NZNOG" or so forth. Not that there is much that can be done about the vagaries of reporters. The problem is surely that NZNOG is a mailing list, no more. We exist to get things done, not to make pronouncements :-) --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Document posting comments -Reply
by Donald Neal 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Craig Anderson at 10/December/1998 10:36am wrote: [...] >There are other problems, but i'm not entirely sure of the nature of >this document, nor it's audience. I suspect Telecom intends to >distribute this much wider than just to it's clients. The implied >support from NZNOG for all of the statements contained within bothers >me. I for one hope a document more or less like this is to be widely distributed. In general it's desirable to avoid claiming NZNOG supports things, since NZNOG isn't an organisation with a process for declaring the organisation's opinion on something. However, if the meeting minutes already posted to this list are accurate, many active NZNOG participants do support the aproach outlined. In that case replacing the existing text with a reference to "many members of NZNOG" or "acting in consultation through the New Zealand Network Operators' Group" would make me happier, but wouldn't make a difference to the average recipient. - Donald Neal --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Revision to Acceptable Use Policy?
by Donald Neal 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

People, The following is a revised version of the posting I send to this list each month, including an acceptable use policy revised as proposed by Joe Abley with some wording changes by me. Are there any objections to the policy in the form in which it appears below? - Donald Neal - - - - - 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 62 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. 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. 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

2 1

Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Document posting comments
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Hi. I include the document in a reasonable format below. I'm concerned about several things in this document. One being, this idea of International and National ISPs and the naming of a set of ISPs as this seems to be included only for commercial reasons and is seriously misleading. >From the document: > It is estimated that the frequency and impact of dampening and > filtering by overseas suppliers will increase over the next few years > to the point where un-aggregated address space cannot be guaranteed to > have reliable connectivity or be routed internationally. This is, at best, misleading. At worst it's simply untrue. There is no reasonable basis on which to make such an estimation. There are other problems, but i'm not entirely sure of the nature of this document, nor it's audience. I suspect Telecom intends to distribute this much wider than just to it's clients. The implied support from NZNOG for all of the statements contained within bothers me. -Craig ---------- Date XXX XXX Customer Company Private Bag YYY City Dear XXX An Appeal to Internet Users in NZ - IP Address Aggregation International ISP's in New Zealand are working closely with APNIC as well as many other ISPs, to consolidate existing IP addresses into internationally aggregated, routable blocks. This initiative is recognised by the New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG), International Internet numbering authorities such as APNIC and IANA, and ISP's world-wide, as being necessary for the good of the Internet as a whole, and will help ensure reliable connectivity for all New Zealand Internet users. This is an appeal for end-user organisations to get behind the drive to tidy up New Zealand allocated Internet address space. Internet address space is a globally managed resource, administered by the Internet registry system for and on behalf of the Internet community as a whole. The Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) is the regional body that allocates IP addresses for the South Pacific area, including New Zealand. APNIC is one of 3 Regional Internet Registries, which operate under the auspices of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), providing allocation and registration services that support the operation of the Internet globally. APNIC provide addresses to International ISP's such as Telecom, Telstra, IBM, The Internet Group and Clearnet, for sub-allocation to ISPs or customers around the country. Each downstream ISP can then assign the addresses to their end-user customers. APNIC also allocate directly to multi-homed ISPs or companies requiring large amounts of IP address space, such as /19 (32 Class C's) or larger. Address space is allocated to meet documented requirements and when the address space is no longer required, the address space should be returned to the allocating organisation. As such, historical and current Internet registry policy does not recognise the concept of address "ownership" or the buying and selling of address space. All IP address allocations are registered with APNIC and the end-user details on the APNIC database must be updated regularly. There is a responsibility on the International ISP's to ensure this occurs, as it is an important part of the procedure to maintain efficiency in allocations and to obtain additional address space. On behalf of the Internet community within New Zealand, we are asking for your help to allow us to aggregate overseas Internet advertisements as much as possible. If you have addresses from a previous supplier, and now use a different International ISP, it is in your own interest as well as best Internet practises, to return those addresses to the previous supplier. These addresses will be re-distributed to other customers, whilst your current International ISP will provide new IP addresses for your network. It must be stated that this is entirely voluntary, and if individual companies choose not to renumber at this time, for any particular reason, it is entirely their choice. However, it should also be stated that it is estimated that connectivity may be less reliable in the future and extended outages may become more frequent unless your company's addresses are being advertised in aggregatable or large blocks. Reasons for this forecast are detailed in the following Q&A section below. This letter is intended to start an education process on the issues surrounding IP address advertisement on the Internet. It is in every user's "best interest" to keep routing tables as simple as possible by advertising international routes efficiently. To do this, every administrator of registered IP address space has the responsibility to act in the best interests of Internet users, and respect the global issues of route advertisements and portability of IP addresses. I have attached some questions and answers that may help you to understand the background and necessity for the changes. If you have any further questions you should contact your ISP or upstream provider. Additional supporting information can be found at http://www.your-website.yyy.nz Yours sincerely YYY Title Organisation Contact phone number Questions Question: What are the issues? IP addresses, allocated by APNIC to each International ISP, need to be advertised from that particular supplier's gateway, allowing large blocks of addresses to be advertised to the Internet with maximum routing efficiency. This process is called supernetting or route aggregation using Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). Documentation on the need for route aggregation can be found at: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-aggregation-tuto rial-01.txt. International Internet routing can be very complex, leading to large routing tables and router limitations being stretched. Many customers are trying to move the addresses they are using to different gateways, breaking down the maximum block size and causing routing tables to increase in size. The problem is Global in scope and is not just in New Zealand. One way to provide "Internet friendly" advertisements is for provider dependent IP addressing. This means non-portable IP addresses between International ISP's, and is the current APNIC policy for address assignments within NZ. Problems are foreseen due to memory limitations and CPU performance on current backbone routers that are stretched because of the sheer number of routes required to advertise the large number of networks. If customer XXX moves from International ISP A to International ISP B, and continues to use the same IP address range, Int.ISP A must now advertise two smaller blocks, as well as advertising the larger block (supernet), increasing the table size. The route table of Int.ISP B also increases with the advertisement of the new range. Overseas supplier's routers then need to handle both increases (increased advertisements from A and B) on their route table. As additional customers move to and from suppliers, the effect increases, until memory limits on individual routers are reached. When limits are reached on individual routers, filtering can be implemented to ensure the more specific, longer prefix, (or smaller) routes can be dropped to enable the router to carry on operating. Also, when networks have connectivity problems, the overseas supplier can configure dampening to occur. This shuts off access for that network for extended periods, and is typically much longer for small networks than for larger networks. Documentation on route-flap dampening parameters can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-178.html It is estimated that the frequency and impact of dampening and filtering by overseas suppliers will increase over the next few years to the point where un-aggregated address space cannot be guaranteed to have reliable connectivity or be routed internationally. Question: If nothing is done, what is likely to happen? If present trends continue we may not be able to obtain more IP address space for distribution within New Zealand, and we may be unable to route non-contiguous Class C networks internationally. This will negatively impact service for all customers using Provider Independent (PI) address space which are small and not aggregatable. Documentation on the comparison between Provider Independent (PI) and Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html Question: What can we do about it? The only way to minimise New Zealand routes negatively impacting on the Internet in the future is to advertise New Zealand routes in contiguous blocks (supernets). The larger the blocks the better. Because routes emanating from New Zealand are currently fragmented between International ISP's, the routes must be consolidated (aggregated) into contiguous blocks. To achieve this, we need to work together to convert current network address schemes into PA address space. Each IP address allocation and assignment must be provided as non-portable, and existing IP address assignments should be renumbered into the aggregated blocks. The Internet is a self regulated organism and as such is driven entirely by it's end-users. To ensure reliable connectivity in the future for all users, some changes may have to take place from time to time as the Internet develops and matures. Some of these changes may be harder for certain user's than for others to implement, but we would ask for your support in doing what will benefit the vast majority of users. Question: Does this affect me? This appeal may affect you if your network uses IP address space supplied by someone other than your current International ISP, and will affect all New Zealand organisations by the ongoing allocation of IP addresses. We would request that all IP addresses from previous International ISP's should be returned to that supplier, or directly to APNIC. Your current supplier will work with you to supply you with the equivalent address space (in a contiguous block). Your company may have to look at renumbering their network. Renumbering has no effect on Domain Names or Email addresses other than behind the scenes configuration, so business cards and stationery should not be affected. Documentation covering the need to renumber can be found at: http://sunsite.hr/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1900.txt and http://sunsite.hr/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2008.txt Question: What are my options if my company has to renumber? There are many options available, but some may not be viable for your companies requirements. We hope you will spend some time researching the pro's and con's of each option, and act in the best interests of New Zealand Internet users, and in the spirit of global Internet best practises. The various options include: 1. Implement a firewall for your company. This means you can keep the numbering scheme you are using and not have to renumber. All access to the network can be through a firewall, for enhanced security, and you will only need a handful (at the most) of new registered IP addresses. The old registered IP addresses will be able to be returned to the original supplier. The network will effectively be on a private numbering scheme, interfacing with the Internet registered addressing scheme by means of a network address translation (NAT) mechanism. The benefit of this method is independence from supplier's numbers (apart from the external firewall addresses) which means swapping suppliers in the future will not impact you nearly as much. NAT technology is improving all the time and allowing more flexibility than in earlier versions. 2. Apply NAT functionality or Web-proxy functionality without a firewall. This gives you Internet access without having to renumber your existing network. You may want to review your network security. 3. If you use dynamic IP allocation techniques such as DHCP for your network, the amount of work required to renumber is greatly reduced. Reconfiguring your DHCP server and rebooting network devices will renumber your devices automatically. You may still require several new static IP addresses for devices which support DHCP technology i.e. for devices such as nameservers on production networks you may still require several new static IP addresses. 4. Unfortunately, if you have static IP addressing throughout your network, and your network does not easily support either NAT or DHCP reconfiguration, you may have to manually renumber your network. 5. If your company is using large amounts of IP address space, such as /19 (32 Class Cs) or larger, you can approach APNIC directly, requesting your own provider independent IP address block. Question: Who is driving the changes? * International Internet numbering authorities such as IANA, APNIC, RIPE and ARIN recommend "Best Internet Practises" be maintained by all suppliers of Internet services. * Within New Zealand, International ISP's such as Telecom, Telstra, Clear, The Internet Group, and IBM are supporting the initiative, along with national ISP's, all of whom sub-allocate IP addresses under APNIC policy. * Internet user's world-wide benefit by New Zealand successfully implementing these changes. There does need to be a combined and rational approach to the problem, so International ISP's, national ISP's and end-users will need to work closely and communicate effectively to co-ordinate the changes as they take place. Question: Whom can I contact to get more information? Your ISP or upstream Internet Service Provider should be able to help with any questions regarding renumbering. Your International ISP will also be able to help you by supplying new contiguous IP address blocks. Additional supporting information can be found at http://www.netgate.net.nz, which has references to the latest APNIC RFC's and policy documentation regarding IP address allocations (such as RFC 2050). Contact can also be made directly with APNIC at http://www.apnic.net for IP address allocation request forms and further information. --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Warwick GLENDENNING 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Hi As a user of this list I am getting tired of these remarks about the posting of documents in certain formats. If you have a problem with a message that has been posted please direct it to the person concerned, NOT the list so the author can fix it instead of lambasting the author on this list, otherwise your comments serve no useful purpose. Thanks Warwick Glendenning Network Manager - University of Waikato -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 9 December 1998 04:29 To: Brett Telfer Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation Brett Telfer wrote: > > Hi all, > > Following on from the meeting at Cisco on the 27th Nov, I have attached > an updated letter which includes suggested input from APNIC. > > This document (or at least the information it contains) can hopefully be > distributed around all end-users as the start of an educational > programme aimed at raising peoples awareness of current IP addressing > issues. > > I have tried to make it as "neutral" as possible, but there may be pieces of > "Telecom centric nature" that slipped past, so if anyone has issues with > these please delete, cut and paste, bastardise etc as necessary. > Apologies also for any inaccuracies that may be present. > Brett, It looks like stuff of a 'Microsoft centric nature' has slipped past. Please can we have this is a non proprietary format? andy -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- 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

6 5

RE: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Warwick GLENDENNING 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

I will second that Warwick -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 10 December 1998 09:48 To: Dean Pemberton; Andy Linton; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Cc: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Document posting comments On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 07:29:14AM +1100, Dean Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:13:56AM +0000, Andy Linton wrote: > > I'm happy to leave this alone IFF we all agree that we desist from > > posting Word etc docs. > > I move that we make this an addition (suitable worded) to the charter of the > NZNOG list. How about: + Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. No attachments of any kind should be sent to the list. If it is required to present a document, a suitable URL for the document may be referred to. For documents that are of general interest, proprietary file formats are discouraged. and also + Breaches in list etiquette (e.g. including attachments) should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not involve complaints being sent to the list. > Anyone second that? Me too :) --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Robert Gray 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Andy Linton wrote: >I'm happy to leave this alone IFF we all agree that we desist from >posting Word etc docs. Word docs suit me fine, particularly for sending out a mail shot to our customers. HTML with or without is useless for this purpose. Dean Pemberton wrote >I move that we make this an addition (suitable worded) to the charter of the >NZNOG list. May I suggest that an amendment to Dean's motion that we request a text version be posted as well as _any_ proprietary format (those with Word will find it easy to save as text). This should satisfy all parties and make it easy for those who have enough to do already. Personally however I would be much happier if even half as much attention was given to the substance rather than the form but then I'm old fashioned like that. BTW I'd like to thank Brett for doing the work and posting something we can use, in one format or another. 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

RE: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggre gation
by Frank March 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

I normally apologise for adding to gratutous email polution but not this time. I had nothing to do with any posting on this issue. I gave clear (and I believe sufficient) reasons for not interfering with the format of a document belonging to someone else when I posted on an entirely separate issue I though to be of importance to the commercial use of the New Zealand Internet. I take very strong personal exception to the tone of the communication from Chris Wedgewood. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wedgwood [SMTP:chris(a)cybernet.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:31 PM > To: Andy Linton > Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address > aggregation > > On Tue, Dec 08, 1998 at 04:29:11PM +0000, Andy Linton wrote: > > > Let's try an analogy here. It looks like the Nazis are winning, let's > > all join the local fascist party, collaborate and learn German. > > > > Me, I prefer to remain part of the resistance. (;-) > > Umm... I wasn't clear, hence you missed my point. > > I'm not saying you _should_ use anything at all to view .doc files (I > hate 'em myself too), I was just suggesting a mechanism for doing so > if you wanted too. > > Anyhow, I'm none to happy about them myself (in theory I can read > them with various tools, but I choose not to because its all too much > effort) and if Frank March or indeed anyone else doesn't feel like > converting these files to a more appropriate format -- could the > please not post the whole fu^H^Hthing (over 100k) to the mailing > list? > --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Dean Pemberton 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 04:53:52PM +1200, Michael Newbery wrote: > > > Yeah, yeah, I know, it's machine generated, and the orignal document should have been marked up right, but hey! I can nitpick too. > Oh I'm sorry Micheal, I always read my html documents in lynx. It looks fine to me =) Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne,Australia mailto:deanp(a)ascend.com.au -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation
by brett.telfer＠telecom.co.nz 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Hi all, Following on from the meeting at Cisco on the 27th Nov, I have attached an updated letter which includes suggested input from APNIC. This document (or at least the information it contains) can hopefully be distributed around all end-users as the start of an educational programme aimed at raising peoples awareness of current IP addressing issues. I have tried to make it as "neutral" as possible, but there may be pieces of "Telecom centric nature" that slipped past, so if anyone has issues with these please delete, cut and paste, bastardise etc as necessary. Apologies also for any inaccuracies that may be present. >From the meeting I believe everyone agreed information should be disseminated amongst end-users as quickly as possible, so that they can make informed decisions and have real input themselves. Hopefully everyone can send this (or something like this) out as a start...?? If there is merit in having parties signing a combined document to show support and good faith then we can go down that path, however I think we should just get on with it and let people know what issues we are facing. Regards BT

6 6

Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Michael Newbery 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Dean wrote: >Here is the HTML version of this document. I wish people would learn to >produce material in some form that is more architecture independant. and then he produced <STYLE>  </STYLE> Paf, whack, smite. Such a standard font RotisSanSerif it is. The document then goes on </HEAD> <BODY> Date Thump, bash, crunch. Having gone to the trouble of using styles, you then negate it to a large extent by comitting the sin of . Yeah, yeah, I know, it's machine generated, and the orignal document should have been marked up right, but hey! I can nitpick too. :-) -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Dean Pemberton 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Here is the HTML version of this document. I wish people would learn to produce material in some form that is more architecture independant. Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne,Australia mailto:deanp(a)ascend.com.au -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Minutes, NZNOG meeting, 27-11-98
by Roger De Salis 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Ladies and Gentlemen, as promised, a set of minutes from the NZNOG meeting last Friday, 27th November 1998. ----------------------------------------------------------- Present Bob Grey - Clearview Peter Mott - 2Day Internet Craig Anderson - Iprolink Joe Abley - Clear Chris Wedgewood - Man about town Rowan Smith - ICONZ Tony Wicks - ICONZ Brett Telfer - Telecom Netgate Roger De Salis - Cisco/ISOCNZ Andy Linton - Netlink Don Stokes - Daedalus Consulting Subject: How to progress the NZ IP address space, to make administration and address exceptions easier, not more difficult to manage in the future. What to do about the 4 address blocks.. namely 202.27.0.0 - 202.27.255.255 202.36.0.0 - 202.37.255.255 202.49.0.0 - 202.49.255.255 202.50.0.0 - 202.50.255.255 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 The 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 block is not in question. This was delegated to NZNIC, not NZGATE, and has been well-delegated since (to Netlink, CLEAR, Iprolink, Netway, Xtra and many others. There are very few (if any) networks delegated to end users within this block. Issues arising 1/ Route Flapping, or possible administrative decision not to re-advertise routes less than /19 by US connection providers. (This is only a suggestion at this stage...) 2/ Requirement for Provider independent address space 3/ Aquisition of additional address space, by those suppliers in NZ requiring it. 4/ Mechanism of handing back address's that are no longer required or in use. 5/ An unequivocal statement that IP address space issues not be used as a commercial lever by Sales staff or other interested parties. It should be noted that all address bocks of /19 or larger are clearly large enough to be either Provider independent or Provider dependent, according to agreed terms. However, the ability to acquire a /19 block implies a scale of operations that may not suit all NZ operators. Address blocks of /25 or smaller are clearly not provider independent, for the purposes of Internet carriage in NZ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Discussion followed about "what to do about the 4 blocks" Dominant provider within each block to advertise. Use APNIC recording mechanism to update/improve information quality, rather than create a separate recording mechanism, and attempt to keep them in sync. Discussion followed about possible creation of an NZNIC, however this was felt to be far to great a step, considering the nature of the problem. It was though that another organisation charged with "administering" IP address space was far to complex compared with the current issues open for discussion. Technical Problems arising from the current IP address regime:- 1/ Multi-homing 2/ Provider independent address space 3/ ISP not large enough to aquire a routeable block. These are more regional registry issues, rather than NZGATE issues, IMHO. The key technical issue at present is that it results in a very large number of long-prefix routes to be advertised all over the place, which (a) may put users in jeopardy in the future, (b) may put them in some jeopardy now due to higher flap penalties, and (c) are an administrative headache. There were three possible solutions suggested: 1. Telecom's proposal - as described in the "letter" from Telecom, describing one solution aggregating into 4 supernets. 2. Joe Abley's proposal - as documented 3. Andy's proposal - collapse the 4 NZGATE ranges into /19 (or larger) supernets, which will be advertised by the dominant provider in each range. The meeting felt that the third option has the most promise and was worth exploring further. The meeting gratefully received contributions from Joe Abley, a draft working paper on the NZGate Delegations. Andy Linton, a roughly correlated list of affected address's and customer names, within the 5 blocks. The following actions were agreed:- Education letter to Customers concerning "Internet Routing Best Practice" "Falling Utilisation due to increasing use of Firewalls" 2/ Document the customers in the 4 blocks Document the usage of the 4 blocks Include all address's, and ignore any issues of ownership. Use APNIC Database for Information Quality Improvement. My Thanks to all participants. Meeting closed at 2pm. -- \_ 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: Question
by Roger De Salis 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Gentlefolk, I did indeed circulate the mintues of that meeting to all the attendees, asking for errors and omissions. That was done on Thursday 3rd Dec. No direct responses about the content, although I'm in dialogue with jabley about additions. I'll post the minutes this afternoon (after I've got Joe's response today). Rgds Roger De Salis Frank March wrote: > > Hello James: > > I am copying your query and this response to Roger De Salis, a member of the > Council of ISOCNZ who a week ago convened a meeting of 15 or so fairly key > New Zealand ISPs to sort out some of the issues relating to the IP numbering > space inherited through what was at one time the sole New Zealand portal to > the Internet through a gateway operated by Waikato University. Roger is a > member of the ISOCNZ Council and our organisation has undertaken to > cooperate with the ISPs in New Zealand to assist in working through some of > the issues surrounding historical allocations of IP number space. > > The good news is that the major and minor ISPs in New Zealand are able and > willing to work on this issue jointly. The group has yet to publish any > notes coming out of the meeting but Roger will be able to comment on the > present situation. (please Roger!) > > Frank March > Secretary, ISOCNZ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Fischer [SMTP:jfischer(a)supercollider.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:21 AM > > To: secretary(a)isocnz.org.nz > > Subject: Question > > > > Sirs: > > > > I recently read the following news snippet, and need > > to find out more about this issue. > > > > Does you group have any involvement in this? > > If so, is there any publicly-available information > > on the issue? > > > > "Net engineers move to clear up IP confusion > > NEW ZEALAND's Internet engineers are moving to > > prevent companies providing Internet services > > trying to get a competitive edge by exploiting > > confusion over Internet addressing." > > > > Our group has extensive distributed networks, supported > > by different bandwidth suppliers. Needless to say, > > the IP address situation, and the de-facto "hostage" > > situation created by the use of non-relocatable address > > blocks has executives "concerned". > > > > I have been charged with "fixing" the mess. > > > > Any information you could offer on your work in this area > > would be a big help. (Yes, your page "ipnums" is a well > > written description, but I am trying to figure out how > > one might best deal with the situation over the short term > > [pre IPv6]) given a need to route 6 to 8 class C blocks to > > each site, while still having each site's "feed" come from > > a wholesale provider. > > > > -- \_ 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

FW: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999
by Frank March 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Dear Folks As I have had only one positive reply so far to my previous message asking for interest in the APEC TEL work on international Internet bandwidth pricing issues, I am forwarding this to the same circulation list as before. I will leave it to the end of this week before I set up a special mailing list and I will then forward information selectively. I have offered to fax copies of the papers I circulated previously in Word formats but I am not in a position to alter the originals for transmission as text as requested by various people. I am grateful to Brendan Black [ratfink(a)xtra.co.nz] for offering to assist with those people apparently lacking either Word or a fax machine by converting to html. Please note however, that this information, while not particularly confidential, does belong to the APEC TEL people and should not be placed into a public domain. Please note that TEL19 will take place in Japan in March 1999 and AFAIK anyone can attend APEC TEL meetings. The principal issue for the IIBF study is the cost of international Internet bandwidth outside North America and some of Europe because of the need to meet the total cost of data circuits from the 'periphery' instead of 'zero balancing' as is normal practice with international telephone calls. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: valerie(a)tas.gov.sg [SMTP:valerie(a)tas.gov.sg] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 8:47 PM > To: apec-iibf(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999 > > > > > 07/12/98 15:47 > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > 07/12/98 15:47 > 07/12/98 15:47 > > Dear Colleagues, > > As was discussed at previous IIBF Task Force Meetings during TEL18 > and from the comments received thus far, there seems to be broad > agreement that information seminars should be organised along the > major milestones of the IIBF Study, to give us the opportunity to > examine the state of play for the Study, to continue dialogue among > all interested participants and to update our knowledge and > understanding of this complex topic. > > > The first of the series of seminars is scheduled for one day on the > fringes of TEL19. Japan will be in touch with me to indicate which > date will be assigned to us. I am copying Yamada-san on this e-mail. > > I think now would be a good time to start preparations for the > seminar. I am writing to solicit interest in serving on an > organisational committee to prepare the programme, format and agenda > for the seminar and to start the search for good speakers from a > wide > range of interest groups. The organisational committee will work > solely by electronic means. > > Could I ask that you send me an email by Friday, 11 December 98, > copied to all Task Force members, to indicate your interest in > serving on this committee? Once the committee is formed and to get > the ball rolling, I will circulate a draft agenda to this committee > on 15 December 98 for comments and suggestions. > > Which brings me then to the issue of sponsorship! In its comments on > the 1st draft of the TOR, the US suggested that corporate > sponsorship > be sought for the information seminars. This would enable us to use > the funds raised thus far (US$100,000 from Singapore) to pay for the > actual conduct of the Study. I would appreciate it if you could > raise > this idea with interested organisations/companies within your > economies to look for potential sponsors. I'd suggest we work > tentatively with a proposed budget of about US$20, 000? Let me know > if this sum is feasible. > > If you are not interested to serve on the organisational committee > but nonetheless have ideas for good speakers or industry experts to > participate in the seminar, I'd welcome those suggestions too. > Again, > kindly copy your suggestions to all IIBF Task Force members until > the > organisational committee is formed. > > Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you by 11 December 98 > > Regards > > Valerie > --------- 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: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and
by Robert Hunt 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Hi Brendon Yes please... do send me a copy of either the html rendition of TOR 2.1.rtf from Frank March and save me the hassle of finding a win32 login somewhere. Also have I missed the minutes of the get together at Cisco Systems? I am of course quite interested to read these. ~without prejudice~ :) I am told that RTF was meant to be an open standard but typical of a certain company's style of doing business that standard got "slightly" changed with subsequent releases of their software without publication of all of those changes so there are irritating situations when an RTF was created in recent Word and then one tries to open it in other software that (rightly) claims to support RTF. I guess if that is so then it explains a lot ... as in the end other vendors have to sniff out the changes and are usually one step behind therefore... so all credit to the StarOffice team if their suite handled an RTF with tables etc and did so impeccably) Robert Hunt --------- 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: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Technical Support 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Brendan Black wrote: > I have been able to convert both documents to html, using > Star Office 5.0, and can mail > these to individuals or to the list if requested. The body of > the main document converted > OK, but variations in table handling in different browsers > may cause problems with the 2 > tables and the project plan at the bottom http://webpages.netlink.co.nz/~alastair/toc-2-1.html It's not exactly the most elegant code (using MS Word's "Save As HTML" - urg) and my method of printing the diagram and table then scanning them into a file is surely the beginning of a great leap backwards, but it's enough that people can read the document. Cheers Alastair Galloway mailto: ag(a)a.co.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: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Frank March 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Reluctantly and with apologies to those receiving this who do not need it, want it, or are receiving it twice, I copy below a note I sent to Andy Linton. I am doing this because I now have similar notes from Dean Pemberton and Craig Anderson and I can see no point this correspondence continuing. In addition to the points I made to Andy, the note was not sent by me as a member of the ISOCNZ Council, but with the appended sig. I emphasise that I will fax it to anyone interested who, for whatever reason, cannot read the original. Original reply as sent to Andy (actually, slightly edited): I am replying directly, personally in order to prevent unnecessary email pollution.. The TOR from APEC Telecommunications WG is not my document, it belongs to an international group who choose to work in their own fashion. The document is in a complex format which is not capable of being translated into text. The web would be a good alternative but I am not in a position to place material on the Web that does not belong to me. I am not interested (sorry Andy) in pursuing arguments about electronic formats.. I have a Microsoft formatted document which belongs to someone else..I can print it and fax it for limited distribution. IP issues and practicalities preclude any other course of action at this stage. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Linton [SMTP:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 9:51 PM > To: Frank March > Cc: 'i > Subject: Re: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of > "Compatible and Sustainable International Charging Arrangements for > Internet Services" > > Frank March wrote: > > > > I am distributing this in the first instance to members of ISOCNZ > Council > > and to the NZNOG group. Apologies to those who get it twice. I also > > apologise to those who cannot read the Word format document. Anyone > stuck, > > please email me and I will make some other arrangement; fax if > necessary. > > > > Frank, > > I raised this issue at the AGM last month and I refered to the Society's > Articles of Associaton. Section 8 at > http://www.isocnz.org.nz/articles.htm says: > > 8 COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBERS > > Every communication with a Member may be by electronic message in > clear ASCII text, directed to the email address of the Member as > recorded in the records of the Society, or where the Member has > no such address by such other means as may be defined by the > Bye-laws of the Society. Such messages will be acceptable for the > conduct of the business of the Society unless the Chairperson > shall advise that any specific business or meeting shall be > conducted at a meeting at which Members are required to be > physically present. > > Given the attention being given to the activities of Microsoft in the US > Courts, it seems to me that even indirect support should not be given to > the activities of an organisation which attempts to subvert the open > nature of the Internet that many of us have striven for over the years. > > I may be cutting my nose off to spite my face here but until ISOCNZ > changes its rules, then I will raise this issue every time I see this > happen on an ISOCNZ list. > > NZNOG of course has no such rules but I'd hope that they'd take a > similar stance on open communication. > > andy --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and Sus tainable International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services"
by Frank March 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

I am distributing this in the first instance to members of ISOCNZ Council and to the NZNOG group. Apologies to those who get it twice. I also apologise to those who cannot read the Word format document. Anyone stuck, please email me and I will make some other arrangement; fax if necessary. ***If you want to continue to receive relevant material PLEASE EMAIL ME DIRECTLY. If you do not, take no further action, I will not trouble you again.***** Ideally, this process should have its own email list and, if there is interest, I will ensure one is established. As I explained some time ago to at least some of you; and I touched on briefly in my slot at the 98 F2F, the APEC Telecommunications Working Group (TEL) has moved quite rapidly to look at the issue of international charging for Internet services. Attached is a cover letter addressed to members of TEL and the current Terms of Reference for the study, both in Word 7 format (please note, before anyone bytes my head of, this is how I received it). I am asking ISOCNZ to provide a point of contact for consultation between the NZ Government representatives on TEL and the "industry" (whatever that means in this context). Please note that, as far as I am aware, anyone may become a member of TEL and attend its meetings so if folk have a problem with this consultation process they can bypass it. I consider a much greater danger to be that interested parties will not hear of the study through these two contact groups so I would appreciate comments on who should receive this information. Please pass it on to colleagues or friends. I am reluctant to blast it out over isocnz-l simply to avoid unnecessary pollution of the email waves. Thanks for your help 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 <<TOR 2.1.rtf>> <<tor2.1covernote.doc>>

5 5

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

Hi. Can someone post some details on the outcome of Friday's meeting for those who could not attend or had to leave early. Thanks, -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

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 30 Nov '98

30 Nov '98

>Can someone post some details on the outcome of Friday's meeting for >those who could not attend or had to leave early. The lunch provided by CISCO was absolutely *fantastic* !! Roger was seen taking orders for lots of kit as a result :-) 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

1 0

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by Chris Wedgwood 26 Nov '98

26 Nov '98

On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 02:20:54PM +1300, Don Stokes wrote: > apnic-011 already says that, at least for addresses allocated in > the NZGate timeframe. I haven't found any other APNIC document > (expired or not) that states APNIC policy toward address ownership. Assuming we all follow this then -- do we have allow people or users with small (eg. /26) networks to take them with them should they decide to move? Allowing this _without_ any constraints would make fragmentation horrific. > Do you have a clause in your service contracts that states > explicitly what the position is regarding IP numbers you assign to > clients? Most ISPs do (and all should). No idea... I speak only for myself, not for any company. I don't look at the legal bits where possible, thats what marketroids and legal people are for. > Does it matter? Yes. If someone is allocated address space for which they are not specifically told whether or not it should be considered portable or not, and therefore they wish to take the network with them when they move providers, we could get considerable fragmentation when many people with small networks do this. > It does if anyone is allocating address space in new blocks without > explicitly stating the "ownership" of addresses, but for the old > addresses it just means that at worst the routing table space taken > up by old addresses doesn't get any smaller. I don't follow; surely we have a situation where providers in the past have carved up a say /20 for clients -- and when a client moves this /20 might then need to become sixeteen /24 routes (or a /21, a /22, a /23 and two /24 or whatever). > It also matters if an ISP wants to move a bunch old /24 prefixes > over to an upstream provider that refuses to deal with them -- so > far the ones that have made noises about refusing small netblocks > this have backed away from that position. Eventfully as enough /24 are freed up, we will be able to coalesce adjacent ones into large networks. > What can be done as a technical group is to develop a consensus on > how to retire old /24 prefixes and aggregate them into larger > blocks, either through the APNIC's return policy (apnic-072), or > through some local arrangement, without grossly impacting on either > ISP or customer operations. This seems like a good idea. > 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. Can someone who attends this meeting then please provide some feedback? -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 9

Re: Anyone got a crowbar?
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

>> A rhetorical question: why does cisco rack mount equipment need a >> crowbar to install? I recall a similar problem years ago when in broadcast engineering environment. Except in those days the gear worked perfectly on the floor, but when bolted into that precision peice of engineering known as a rack, it started to play up. If you ever did your job really well and tied back the cables neatly so others could tell you were a professional, it was sure to stop. Just be thankful that even after your crowbar adjustment, your router still goes! 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

1 0

Anyone got a crowbar?
by Michael Newbery 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

A rhetorical question: why does cisco rack mount equipment need a crowbar to install? Would it really be SO difficult to make the cases 2mm narrower so that when the mounting brackets are fitted they slide into the rack rather than having to be forced? Mild steel is a wonderful engineering material characterised by its ability to gracefully deform under stress, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy watching it do so. Mumble. -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4

FW: Let's look into ICANN Participation from Asia and Pacific Region
by Barry Raveendran Greene 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

[Sorry for the duplicates.] FYI - for those not on one of the AP* Groups mailing list (APNIC, APIA, APNG, APPLe, APTLD). -----Original Message----- From: owner-apia-board(a)apia.org [mailto:owner-apia-board(a)apia.org] On Behalf Of Kilnam Chon Sent: Thursday, November 26, 1998 8:47 AM To: apstar(a)apng.org Subject: [APIA-BOARD] Let's look into icann participation from ap region ICANN "made" the agreement with NTIA to be recognized.(See NTIA homepage) ICANN is looking for participation of Membership Advisory Committee, which is being newly created.(will attach the announcement) DNSO(and possibly other SOs; ASO, PSO) will look for participation of various stakeholders(associations, organizations, individuals,...).(will attach memos) Hope to see appropriate participation to various ICANN committees from AP regions. my idea is as follows; 1. ICANN Membership Advisory Committee each relevant AP organizations to volunteer at least one person: apng, apia, apple, apricot,...(more) 2. DNSO APIA for ISP/Telco Constituency APNG(?) and others for General Business(for- and non-profit) APNG(?), APRICOT, APPLe,.. for At Large chon ____________________________________________________________________________ __ >From iana-announce-owner(a)ISI.EDU Thu Nov 26 04:15:01 1998 Received: from zephyr.isi.edu (zephyr.isi.edu [128.9.160.160]) by cosmos.kaist.ac.kr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA23586 for <chon(a)cosmos.kaist.ac.kr>; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 04:14:58 +0900 (KST) Received: (from majordom(a)localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id KAA28440 for iana-announce-outgoing; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA28435 for <iana-announce(a)zephyr.isi.edu>; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ode.isi.edu (ode-e.isi.edu [128.9.160.68]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA03177; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:08:10 -0800 (PST) From: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority <iana(a)ISI.EDU> Received: (from iana(a)localhost) by ode.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id KAA29487; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:08:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:08:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199811251808.KAA29487(a)ode.isi.edu> To: iana-announce(a)ISI.EDU Subject: ICANN Membership Advisory Committee Cc: iana(a)ISI.EDU X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-iana-announce(a)ISI.EDU Precedence: discussion Status: RO Content-Length: 3512 Lines: 75 ICANN Membership Advisory Committee- Expressions of Interest Sought by 5 December, 1998 The ICANN Bylaws call for a membership structure to be established to elect At Large directors. (See Bylaws Article V, Section 9(c)) The Initial Board is establishing an advisory committee (see Bylaws Article VII, Section 3(c)) to advise it on the appropriate membership structure to satisfy the need for world wide representation on the board, and in particular how to create a diverse and open membership without subjecting the corporation to undue risk of capture by any particular interest group. The advisory committee will consist of up to ten members, and will include Initial Board members George Conrades as Chairman, and Greg Crew. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School has agreed to provide assistance to the committee, including an independent study of membership issues. Expressions of interest are invited from individuals willing to serve on this committee, which will address specific issues including but not limited to: a) membership structures and arrangements that will provide a world wide representative body to nominate and elect the 9 At Large ICANN board directors (with the goal of recommending three to five options to the ICANN Board). b) appropriate rights and obligations of members, including membership application and registration requirements, membership fee structures, liability limitation of members, and voting rights and procedures. c) requirements and procedures for various forms of membership, including individual, corporate and association. d) efficient procedures for members to nominate and participate in the election of At Large directors, and to participate in general meetings of the corporation. The work of the advisory committee will be open and inclusive of all members of the Internet community. Draft and final recommendations will be posted on the ICANN web site, and suggestions and comments via the Internet will be invited from interested parties. Recommendations from the committee will be subject to the notice and comment procedures set forth in the Bylaws, Article III, Section 3. The ICANN Board will select the committee with the goal of assembling a diverse and broadly representative group. Expressions of interest to participate are to be directed to msvh(a)icann.org, by midnight, 5 December, 1998, US west coast time. Applicants are requested to state what contribution they would expect to make towards the work of this committee; such statements need not be more than 100 words. The committee will commence work in December, 1998. Most of the work of the committee will be conducted via phone or the Internet. A final meeting is planned to be held in Singapore on 1 March, 1999, to prepare a report to the ICANN board by the end of March. Committee members will be expected to devote sufficient time to the work of the committee to achieve this very tight schedule. Pending the identification of an ICANN funding mechanism and the actual receipt of funds, ICANN's resources to support meeting and travel expenses of its committees is very limited. We ask that committee members assist us by assuming personal responsibility for their travel expenses, if possible. We will facilitate phone participation in face-to-face meetings as necessary. Contact: Molly Shaffer Van Houweling Senior Advisor to the President and CEO Staff to the Advisory Committee on Membership ICANN msvh(a)icann.org ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ 1998.11.24 Summary report of Monterey DNSO Meeting --------------------------------------- The second DNSO formulation consultation meeting was held in Monterey, Mexico in 1998.11.15-17. This is the informal summary report of the meeting. See www.dnso.org for the meeting minutes. 1. Around 40 people participated the meeting, similar to the first meeting in Bercelona in October 1998. Participation from Asia-Pacific was very small. Some trademark organizations such as INTA and CASIE participated, but not ICC nor WIPO. gTLD registries such as NSI/InterNIC did not participate this time either even though NSI participated the ad hoc meeting in Boston in the previous week. 2. We had (rough) consensus on structure, representation and funding this time, and decided to proceed to submit the application to ICANN by the end of this year as recommendated by ICANN. Others may be applying, too. 3. DNSO structure and each constituency's representation to Names Council are as follows; Names Council as the executive committee of DNSO 5 Constituencies 21 Registry 3+3 Registrar 3 Infrastructure and Connectivity Providers(ISP, Telco,..) 3 General Business(for- and non-profit) 3 Trademark 3 At Large(Other organizations and individuals) 3 Fair Hearing Panel(Option) 4. We set up the following teams to carry on the future work for DNSO formulation. Transition Team Articulation, Liaison, Outreach Drafting Team Minutes and Application Document We agreed to particularly emphasize on the outreach to include as many stakeholders as possible to DNSO. [hope many AP* organizations to participate in various constituencies of DNSO.] Remark: The next ICANN Meetings will be held in March 1999 in Singapore along APRICOT, and 3 Supporting Organizations(Domain Name, Address, and Protocol) are expected to be official approved then. The detail will be announced shortly.(www.icann.org) We need to agree with other major stakeholders such as NSI and ICC prior to submission of the DNSO application to ICANN, or we will be forced to coordinate after the application submission. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Additional
by Joe Abley 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

Why do I always do that? Document is attached, this time.

1 0

revised draft for NZGATE addresses
by Joe Abley 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

I have made some fairly rough and ready changes to my initial draft (now over a month old) based on feedback received through this list. This is still just "one possible solution". No flames please. I have not been able to spend as much time as I would like polishing this and thinking about the issues, since I've been working on this at nice -20 with frequent context switching :) Consider this very drafty but a possible starting point for the meeting tomorrow in Auckland. Joe --------- 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: Anyone got a crowbar?
by Michael Newbery 25 Nov '98

25 Nov '98

My racks don't have skins---no need since they are in a nice secure blockhouse---and I like the all-around access, but if I used racks I'd have to seismically brace the units (i.e. tie them to the shelves). Besides, it offends me that they do quite a nifty job with the rack mount kits---one size fits all: front/centre/rear/wall mount @19" or 23"---and then I need a jemmy to install the box. At least the PCMCIA slot on recent units is accessible (unlike on the 25xx series, oops). --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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 25 Nov '98

25 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 23 Nov '98

23 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 23 Nov '98

23 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 20 Nov '98

20 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 19 Nov '98

19 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

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

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

17 Nov '98

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. I also gather there are some other legacy addresses that may not be regarded as NZGATE? I thnink that these should also be included. In any event I think this is an excellent idea and Andy is to be thanked for organising it. I will certainly attend. > I propose that we treat this meeting in the same vein as an IETF meeting > i.e. it is a meeting for engineers who will sit down and debate a > technical problem and solutions to that problem and agree on a best fit > solution. That's certainly the right approach given the technical nature of the problem, however the solution must address the commercial needs of the various operators in NZ, unless it does it will not be possible to obtain 'buy-in' from the players and no progress will have been made. While some of us may well be able to speak to both technical and commercial needs there may be some organisations where this is not the case and in this circumstance I would hope that appropriate representatives of both sides would be invited? Furthermore the solution may have a commercial dimension, for example the solution to the domain name issue lead to DOMAINZ. It would also be nice to have representation (or at least an observer) from ISOCNZ and Telecom. > .... nor am I interested in any sort of finger pointing exercise > at individuals or providers. Too right. > .... I'm not sure if that includes beer... I live in hope --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Let's try to sort the NZgate address questions out
by Andy Linton 16 Nov '98

16 Nov '98

I'd like to propose that we meet face to face to try to resolve the NZgate address issues. 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. I'd also like to be able to indicate to those interested parties who will be at the ISOCNZ Forum this week that this is happening. ISOCNZ have indicated that they may provide assistance with travelling expenses for out of town attendees. Anyone who wishes to explore that needs to talk to them directly and make a case. I propose that we treat this meeting in the same vein as an IETF meeting i.e. it is a meeting for engineers who will sit down and debate a technical problem and solutions to that problem and agree on a best fit solution. We should then document that solution and endeavour to see that our respective organisations adopt it. Although I do believe this should be an open meeting I am not keen to see lawyers, business managers, marketing types etc there nor am I interested in any sort of finger pointing exercise at individuals or providers. 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... -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- 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: Need for .nz WHOIS server
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

Andy Linton wrote:- >I'll echo the call for a whois request in the form Joe suggested. I'll >also note that this is not a new request. I and a number of others asked >for this from Waikato when they ran the name registration, later when >ISOCNZ took over the administration before Domainz was created and again >since Domainz was in the picture. So we do share some concerns after all :-) >I look forward to being able to use it! As a matter of interest, what would you suggest the main purpose of having a .nz WHOIS is? 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

4 3

Re: Need for .nz WHOIS server
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 12 Nov '98

12 Nov '98

>> Reason for wanting published registration information is principally for >> finding out contact details, in cases of (a) network abuse, (b) spam or >> (c) operational problems. Plus it's interesting to poke around in :) The web based interface at Domainz meets this need for us. It does not matter if the data is a little old. >Is there any particular reason for wanting this in WHOIS format since the >information is available via the web? For us its not a question of whether we have http or whois access, but rather the data elements available meet our needs and the information is live. The current service does not meet either of these needs for us. A quick example is answering the question "Is this name available for registration?" We cant issue one request and get an authorative answer. These are the steps we currently have to take:- a) Check name has valid syntax b) Check name is not on our own offensive name list c) Check name is not same as a TLD Above checks are not made by Domainz "Check whether a name is registered" script. d) Lookup Domainz site to see if its registered e) Check Domainz pending queue to see if another request is known to be ahead of ours f) Submit template to Domainz for processing Unfortunately, due to Domainz system design, the pending queue is not updated in real time, so there are always periods of time when they may have a request for a name in the queue ahead of us, and we have no way of knowing until we get a rejection, sometimes hours later. This is only one example. There are lots of others 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

1 0

Recent Political Cruft
by Patrick O'Brien 11 Nov '98

11 Nov '98

Cheers Andy. Call echoed. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [SMTP:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 1:04 PM To: Patrick O'Brien Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Recent Political Cruft Patrick O'Brien wrote: > > Joe, > > Thanks for WHOIS request. > > BTW I agree with Chris that the NZOG list should be for NZOG, I'm not a fan of > multiple cross postings, and I've not subscribed to your list. I'll echo the call for a whois request in the form Joe suggested. I'll also note that this is not a new request. I and a number of others asked for this from Waikato when they ran the name registration, later when ISOCNZ took over the administration before Domainz was created and again since Domainz was in the picture. I look forward to being able to use it! -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Recent Political Cruft
by Patrick O'Brien 11 Nov '98

11 Nov '98

Joe, Thanks for WHOIS request. BTW I agree with Chris that the NZOG list should be for NZOG, I'm not a fan of multiple cross postings, and I've not subscribed to your list. ISOCNZ does have its list for whatever purposes it chooses. My regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 10:09 AM To: Chris Wedgwood; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Cc: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Recent Political Cruft On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 09:47:07AM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > Isn't the recent political cruft and cross-posting (well, multiple > recipients) with isocnz-l, which, presumably, many of us get anyway > somewhat off-charter for this list? > > If I'm being anal, please tell me - but I'd really like this list to > stay away from the usually isocnz-l type flame wars. > > If we allow this list to sink to the level of others, it's usefulness > will be greatly reduced and the possibility of fragmentation becomes > greater... Yaay! The voice of reason. This list is here to discuss operational network issues and beer (not necessarily in that order). 2Day's personal issues with Domainz have been well documented elsewhere and it's simply annoying to see them being rehashed here. There was a reasonable question at the beginning of the tirade, which was whether there were any architectural suggestions which could be discussed in the NZNOG list to do with the domain registration process. I would like to see a whois server provisioned somewhere, so I can query (preferably in a RIPE-181 kind of a way) a subzone of the nz tld and get contact information... It's possible that the APNIC db will support the domain: records, in which case that's potentially a place that this information could be published. Something for domainz to think about? -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 --------- 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: Recent Political Cruft
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 11 Nov '98

11 Nov '98

Joe Abley wrote:- >There was a reasonable question at the beginning of the tirade I thought it was too. >This list is here to discuss operational network issues and beer (not >necessarily in that order). 2Day's personal issues with Domainz have been >well documented elsewhere and it's simply annoying to see them being >rehashed here. I guess once some of the engineering issues we face become a problem for others, our position will be more widely understood. I apologise for the somewhat OT and terse exchange that occured. Back to the beer and networking :-) Speaking of which I see Brent Telfer of Telecom NZ has sent a letter to Netgate customers re IP routing. Top marks for having a go at explaining what its about. It will be interesting to see the response. 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

1 0

Recent Political Cruft
by Chris Wedgwood 11 Nov '98

11 Nov '98

Isn't the recent political cruft and cross-posting (well, multiple recipients) with isocnz-l, which, presumably, many of us get anyway somewhat off-charter for this list? If I'm being anal, please tell me - but I'd really like this list to stay away from the usually isocnz-l type flame wars. If we allow this list to sink to the level of others, it's usefulness will be greatly reduced and the possibility of fragmentation becomes greater... -cw (looking now for the asbestos suit...) --------- 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: Industry specification for registry interface
by Chris O'Donoghue 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

>Actually I thought I might get some interest from those providers who are >seeking to drive down administration costs through automation, but clearly >there are none lurking here. Must still be plenty of margin in the access >business! > I have some interest in this but I think like a few others we just pulled our heads in, while you and Patrick had your wee tiff. Regards Chris --------- 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: Industry specification for registry interface
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Andy Linton wrote >If the point of your seeking NZNOG input is to politicise this group, to >make >NZNOG into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own >personal >agenda, then I want no part. Actually I thought I might get some interest from those providers who are seeking to drive down administration costs through automation, but clearly there are none lurking here. Must still be plenty of margin in the access business! 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

1 0

Industry specification for registry interface
by Patrick O'Brien 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Andy, Thanks. I'll resist the temptation to join at present, but will ask Dave Harpham our technical guy to sign up. My regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [SMTP:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 3:33 PM To: Patrick O'Brien Cc: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' Subject: Re: Industry specification for registry interface Patrick O'Brien wrote: > > Peter, > > You wrote, > > > We are looking to improve our automated application ... > > I assumed that you meant 2Day Internet, which is why I refered to changes that > you are wanting to make. > > > My interest is contributing our experience and resources into > > a specification which can benefit the entire industry. > > I've no issues with that, but Domainz is part of that industry too. > > > It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made > available to participate. > > If this is an ititiative of the NZOG group[, then again, I have no issues > there. > > As I admitted in my posting, I do not know the who/what/why of NZOG, nor had > any formal invitiation to be involved. Are you formally inviting DOmainz to > join on behalf of the group? > > > What has become clear to us as ... your delivery has been woefully > inadequate. > > Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. > > I note 2Day Internet's personal views and claims. > > Sorry Peter, but I do not believe our delivery has been "woefully inadequate". > Is this the view of NZOG? > > If the point of your seeking Domainz input is to politicise this group, to make > Domainz into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal > agenda, then I want no part. I therefore need to re-assess my responses above. > > Can someone tell me who is the spokesperson for this group please, what its > objectives are, and whether there is a need for DOmainz to be involved? I don't believe there is a spokesperson for this group but I can state quite clearly here that Peter Mott does not speak for Netlink on this matter or any other. I don't know what agenda Peter is pushing either. Our experience with Domainz is positive with fast turnaround and low fees when compared with overseas registries. I paraphrase Patrick's comments above and direct them to Peter Mott: If the point of your seeking NZNOG input is to politicise this group, to make NZNOG into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal agenda, then I want no part. This list is open to interested parties - there is no need for a formal invitiation to Patrick or Domainz. To subscribe to nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: subscribe 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

Industry specification for registry interface
by Patrick O'Brien 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Peter, You wrote, > We are looking to improve our automated application ... I assumed that you meant 2Day Internet, which is why I refered to changes that you are wanting to make. > My interest is contributing our experience and resources into > a specification which can benefit the entire industry. I've no issues with that, but Domainz is part of that industry too. > It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. If this is an ititiative of the NZOG group[, then again, I have no issues there. As I admitted in my posting, I do not know the who/what/why of NZOG, nor had any formal invitiation to be involved. Are you formally inviting DOmainz to join on behalf of the group? > What has become clear to us as ... your delivery has been woefully inadequate. > Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. I note 2Day Internet's personal views and claims. Sorry Peter, but I do not believe our delivery has been "woefully inadequate". Is this the view of NZOG? If the point of your seeking Domainz input is to politicise this group, to make Domainz into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal agenda, then I want no part. I therefore need to re-assess my responses above. Can someone tell me who is the spokesperson for this group please, what its objectives are, and whether there is a need for DOmainz to be involved? My regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: 2Day Chief Enthusiast [SMTP:peter(a)2day.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:54 PM To: Patrick O'Brien; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Industry specification for registry interface Patrick Obrien wrote:- >I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter >wishes to make to his applications. Sorry, but thats not what I said. I post it again below:- >>Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common >>industry >>specification My interest is contributing our experience and resources into a specification which can benefit the entire industry. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or >areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them >directly to me. We think our time and that of other providers would be better spent on working together to come up with a specification. It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. >Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any >thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own >development priorities where sensible. What has become clear to us as your largest billing customer and manager of nearly 10% of commercial domains in NZ, is that whilst you say you are interested in improvements for the benefit of Internet providers, your delivery has been woefully inadequate. Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. regards Peter Mott -----Original Message----- From: Patrick O'Brien [SMTP:p.o.brien(a)domainz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:39 PM To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' Subject: Industry specification for registry interface To NZOG members, I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter wishes to make to his applications. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them directly to me. Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own development priorities where sensible. We also have to take into consideration the wishes of others that may not be members of NZOG (I do not know much about your, your role nor your composition, excuse my ignorance). My regards, PATRICK J O'BRIEN Fax: (04) 473-4569 Voice: (04) 473-4567 Mail: P.O.BRIEN(a)DOMAINZ.NET.NZ Web: http://www.DOMAINZ.NET.NZ ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "2Day Chief Enthusiast" <peter(a)2day.net.nz> To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Industry specification for registry interface Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:08:32 +1300 We are looking to improve our automated application which interfaces with Domainz. Whilst what we have does work, there is plenty of room for improvement. Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common industry specification which Domainz can use to improve the design of its system? 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

Industry specification for registry interface
by Patrick O'Brien 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Peter, > There has not been any discussion at this stage OK, I'll do nothing and await any approaches that NZOG feel appropriate > Please name anything substantive...Maybe I missed them. > Dont be so pathetic. I thought the issue was improvements in the Registry interface? Our goal is to improve service to name holders on a fair and equal basis. As the RFC 1591 Country mnager, we have a duty to serve the community in an equitable way. We don't specifically target Internet providers as the key beneficiaries, nor do we target them as victims. > All I wanted to see was ... And all I wanted to see was whether there were issues, what they were, and what role (if any) there was for DOmainz in helping address potential issues. Hence my original response. Regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: 2Day Chief Enthusiast [SMTP:peter(a)2day.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 2:02 PM To: Patrick O'Brien; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Industry specification for registry interface >> It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made >>available to participate. >If this is an ititiative of the NZOG group[, then again, I have no issues >there. There has not been any discussion at this stage. NZNOG may not be interested at all. We have to wait and see. >Sorry Peter, but I do not believe our delivery has been "woefully inadequate". > Is this the view of NZOG? Please name anything substantive you have done which specifically benefited Internet Providers. Maybe I missed them. >If the point of your seeking Domainz input is to politicise this group, to make >Domainz into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal >agenda, then I want no part. I therefore need to re-assess my responses above. Dont be so pathetic. All I wanted to see was whether the techno types subscribed here wanted to contribute to something I thought worthwhile. If you have a tech person that wants to join in then that would be great. regards Peter Mott -----Original Message----- From: Patrick O'Brien [SMTP:p.o.brien(a)domainz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 1:40 PM To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' Subject: Industry specification for registry interface Peter, You wrote, > We are looking to improve our automated application ... I assumed that you meant 2Day Internet, which is why I refered to changes that you are wanting to make. > My interest is contributing our experience and resources into > a specification which can benefit the entire industry. I've no issues with that, but Domainz is part of that industry too. > It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. If this is an ititiative of the NZOG group[, then again, I have no issues there. As I admitted in my posting, I do not know the who/what/why of NZOG, nor had any formal invitiation to be involved. Are you formally inviting DOmainz to join on behalf of the group? > What has become clear to us as ... your delivery has been woefully inadequate. > Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. I note 2Day Internet's personal views and claims. Sorry Peter, but I do not believe our delivery has been "woefully inadequate". Is this the view of NZOG? If the point of your seeking Domainz input is to politicise this group, to make Domainz into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal agenda, then I want no part. I therefore need to re-assess my responses above. Can someone tell me who is the spokesperson for this group please, what its objectives are, and whether there is a need for DOmainz to be involved? My regards, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: 2Day Chief Enthusiast [SMTP:peter(a)2day.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:54 PM To: Patrick O'Brien; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Industry specification for registry interface Patrick Obrien wrote:- >I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter >wishes to make to his applications. Sorry, but thats not what I said. I post it again below:- >>Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common >>industry >>specification My interest is contributing our experience and resources into a specification which can benefit the entire industry. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or >areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them >directly to me. We think our time and that of other providers would be better spent on working together to come up with a specification. It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. >Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any >thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own >development priorities where sensible. What has become clear to us as your largest billing customer and manager of nearly 10% of commercial domains in NZ, is that whilst you say you are interested in improvements for the benefit of Internet providers, your delivery has been woefully inadequate. Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. regards Peter Mott -----Original Message----- From: Patrick O'Brien [SMTP:p.o.brien(a)domainz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:39 PM To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' Subject: Industry specification for registry interface To NZOG members, I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter wishes to make to his applications. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them directly to me. Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own development priorities where sensible. We also have to take into consideration the wishes of others that may not be members of NZOG (I do not know much about your, your role nor your composition, excuse my ignorance). My regards, PATRICK J O'BRIEN Fax: (04) 473-4569 Voice: (04) 473-4567 Mail: P.O.BRIEN(a)DOMAINZ.NET.NZ Web: http://www.DOMAINZ.NET.NZ ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "2Day Chief Enthusiast" <peter(a)2day.net.nz> To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Industry specification for registry interface Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:08:32 +1300 We are looking to improve our automated application which interfaces with Domainz. Whilst what we have does work, there is plenty of room for improvement. Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common industry specification which Domainz can use to improve the design of its system? 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

1 0

Re: Industry specification for registry interface
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

>> It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made >>available to participate. >If this is an ititiative of the NZOG group[, then again, I have no issues >there. There has not been any discussion at this stage. NZNOG may not be interested at all. We have to wait and see. >Sorry Peter, but I do not believe our delivery has been "woefully inadequate". > Is this the view of NZOG? Please name anything substantive you have done which specifically benefited Internet Providers. Maybe I missed them. >If the point of your seeking Domainz input is to politicise this group, to make >Domainz into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own personal >agenda, then I want no part. I therefore need to re-assess my responses above. Dont be so pathetic. All I wanted to see was whether the techno types subscribed here wanted to contribute to something I thought worthwhile. If you have a tech person that wants to join in then that would be great. 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

1 0

Re: Industry specification for registry interface
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Patrick Obrien wrote:- >I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter >wishes to make to his applications. Sorry, but thats not what I said. I post it again below:- >>Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common >>industry >>specification My interest is contributing our experience and resources into a specification which can benefit the entire industry. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or >areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them >directly to me. We think our time and that of other providers would be better spent on working together to come up with a specification. It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. >Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any >thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own >development priorities where sensible. What has become clear to us as your largest billing customer and manager of nearly 10% of commercial domains in NZ, is that whilst you say you are interested in improvements for the benefit of Internet providers, your delivery has been woefully inadequate. Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. 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

1 0

Final Agenda - Face to Face '98
by Sue Leader 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

Greetings. I am pleased to present the Final Agenda for Face to Face '98 - "The Internet - Tool or Toy". All venues remain as announced. I hope that you will find the range of topics stimulating and useful and that we'll see you there. Please note that the presentation on Domainz by CEO, Patrick O'Brien has been moved from the AGM into the conference so that the session can be included in the broadcast. +++++++++++++++++ Final Agenda: 8:15 Registration & Coffee 8:45 Keynote address: Dr Howard Frederick, Director, New Zealand Internet Institute The Internet in Our Information Society: Private and Public Sector Challenges 9:15 Session 1 Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs Liable? Lead Speaker: Peter Dengate-Thrush, Solicitor, and a Panel of Speakers 10:15 Morning coffee 10:30 Presentation: Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS Jim Higgins, Chair, ISOCNZ 11:00 Session 2 Who Inherited NZgate? Portability of IP Addresses Lead Speaker: Roger de Salis, CISCO Systems, and a Panel of Speakers 12:30 Lunch 1:00 Presentation: Managing New Zealands Domain Name Space Patrick OBrien, CEO, Domainz 2:00 Session 3: Does the Internet Need Government? Lead Speaker: Dr Frank March, IT Policy Advisory Unit, Ministry of Commerce, and a Panel of Speakers 3:15 Closing address: Presentation: ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest International - Prashanta Mukherjee, Ernst & Young 3:45 Afternoon coffee 4:30 ISOCNZ Annual General Meeting (Note: No entry charge for AGM) Sue Leader Executive Director ISOCNZ (Internet Society of New Zealand Inc) Exe.Dir(a)ISOCNZ.org.nz Voice: +64-4-801-6256 http://www.isocnz.org.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

Industry specification for registry interface
by Patrick O'Brien 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

To NZOG members, I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter wishes to make to his applications. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them directly to me. Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own development priorities where sensible. We also have to take into consideration the wishes of others that may not be members of NZOG (I do not know much about your, your role nor your composition, excuse my ignorance). My regards, PATRICK J O'BRIEN Fax: (04) 473-4569 Voice: (04) 473-4567 Mail: P.O.BRIEN(a)DOMAINZ.NET.NZ Web: http://www.DOMAINZ.NET.NZ ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "2Day Chief Enthusiast" <peter(a)2day.net.nz> To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Industry specification for registry interface Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:08:32 +1300 We are looking to improve our automated application which interfaces with Domainz. Whilst what we have does work, there is plenty of room for improvement. Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common industry specification which Domainz can use to improve the design of its system? 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 Sue Leader Executive Director ISOCNZ (Internet Society of New Zealand Inc) Exe.Dir(a)ISOCNZ.org.nz Voice: +64-4-801-6256 http://www.isocnz.org.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

Industry specification for registry interface
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

We are looking to improve our automated application which interfaces with Domainz. Whilst what we have does work, there is plenty of room for improvement. Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common industry specification which Domainz can use to improve the design of its system? 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

1 0

Nomination for ISOCNZ Council
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

In response to multiple requests, and after some consideration I have decided to make myself available for service on the council of the Internet Society of New Zealand (ISOCNZ) A brief document describing who I am and some of the issues I consider important can be viewed at:- http://peter.mott.co.nz As the director of an Internet provider, I am interested in hearing the views of others who work in the industry which my company 2Day Internet Limited operates. As I would like to develop views which are more representative of Internet providers, please feel free to write to me at peter(a)2day.net.nz if you have something significant to say! It is well known that the current membership of ISOCNZ is quite low and that most participation is from folk employed in the government and academic sectors. To ensure the internet industry has increased representation on council, I would ask that you seriously consider voting for me and any other candidates from industry who you think can make a valuable contribution. If you work within the Internet industry and are not a member of ISOCNZ, please contact me directly so I can assist you with joining up. Individual membership is only NZ$50.00 + GST / year. Notice of the annual general meeting at which councillors will be elected can be viewed at:- http://www.isocnz.org.nz/98agm.html If you are unable to attend the AGM to be held in Wellington, you need to vote using a proxy. This means you sign a document allowing another person who is attending to vote for you. Unfortunately the notice of meeting did not allow for proxies to be accepted using email (as provided for in the constitution) so you will need to provide your proxy in writing. Your proxy needs to be in the hands of the Secretary by 4pm on Wednesday 18 November 1998. Note that this is 48 hours before the meeting. If you would like a proxy form faxed to you, please contact me. Thank you for your time. Peter Mott Managing Director 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

RE: ISOCNZ forum - an idea
by Robert Gray 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

Frank March wrote: > ..... We would just need a day, place and time to be > agreed and a willing host. We could happily do 10-15, get a bit cramped beyond that. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

2 1

Interactive Video Feed - Auckland - Face to Face '98
by netwoman＠one2one.co.nz 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

Greetings. I have been following the discussion on this list and the newsgroup which has queried why the technology for the free, live broadcast of Face to Face '98 to the Altos Bar in Sky City is not interactive. I have consulted with the contractor and discovered (to my embarrassment) that it is indeed interactive. I am completely ignorant of this part of the technology, so I apologise for not picking up on this sooner. So - the process will run like this (the gods of technology willing <g>): The live video feed will commence at 8:30 and run through until just before 3:30. Wellington will see Auckland and vice versa. Our expectation is that when each of the Sessions (1,2, and 3) break into workshops that the Auckland participants will do the same thing. The report-back sessions will include space for live report- back from Auckland. The only difficulty lies in the deadline for pack- up at Altos as they need the gear cleared by 3:30 as the bar opens to the public at 4:00pm. We are negotiating on this, and Plan B is that if the pack-up has to be before Auckland has a chance to report back on Session 3 "Does the Internet Need Government?" that we have someone in Auckland report in by Cell-phone. Whether we can accommodate more interaction than this will very much depend on the day - it's a learning curve for many of us. I need to reiterate that the AGM is *not* part of the broadcast as we do not have constitutional provision. This year's broadcast/video confernece is really a "trial run" for next year, when we will have the consitutional power and the appropriate security to run the Conference and AGM across the net itself with full voting ability for all participants. I hope this clears up any concerns people have had, and again I reget that my ignorance of the technology has caused confusion. I look forward to "meeting" you in some form, and at the same time extending my knowledge on the technology front. PS The bar at Altos will open at noon for participants, and tea and coffee will be available all day. Cordially Sue Leader Executive Director ISOCNZ (Internet Society of New Zealand Inc) Exe.Dir(a)ISOCNZ.org.nz Voice: +64-4-801-6256 http://www.isocnz.org.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: ISOCNZ forum - an idea
by Robert Gray 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

Sue Leader wrote (in part) > we wish to offer NZNOG members some alternatives to discuss. > 2. Attend only the "Who Inherited NZgate? Certainly, where do I apply? > 3. We are happy to facilitate a pre-Forum 'NZNOG and interest parties' gathering. Also an excellent suggestion, the time frame allowed in the forum (1.5 hours) doesn't sound adequate to me. This is a complex subject. > 4. It may be possible to set up a lunchtime round-table "closed door" session for NOG's on > the day to talk through issues. This also sounds like a good idea, given sufficient attendance by such worthies. Hopefully agreement on a course of actual action can be obtained > If travel costs are one of the problems for attendance....... No, there are other things I can do in Wellington in the pm and I'll come to the AGM. A generous and pleasing offer though. Personally I think this is an excellent offer and certainly demonstrates the type of leadership I was looking for. A cheque for my membership sub is in the mail Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

2 1

RE: ISOCNZ forum - an idea
by Frank March 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

Joe: I think your idea of producing a document would be very helpful. I would like to see ISOCNZ have the role of discussing/adopting such a document (if it is suitable, of course <G>) on behalf of the Internet community. Possibly even look at extending the ISPCOP in this direction...again if that seemed a useful thing to do. The idea of a 'closed room' session was not intended for secrecy.. only to keep numbers down to those interested and knowledgeable so that the issues could be explored 'off line' from wider discussions; it was always intended to include all who wanted to contribute, but exclude at the early stage those who only wanted to learn. I think a separate day would be better and if that could report to the F2F it would be very useful indeed. Andy has suggested that as most protagonists are in Auckland that the meeting should be there. We would just need a day, place and time to be agreed and a willing host. Frank March > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:22 AM > To: netwoman(a)one2one.co.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Cc: isocnz-admin(a)isocnz.org.nz; jabley(a)clear.co.nz > Subject: Re: ISOCNZ forum - an idea > > On Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 09:24:03PM +1200, Sue Leader wrote: > > > > The Face to Face organising committee has been following the > > NZNOG discussion on the "Who owns Netgate?" session of Face to > > Face with interest. (After feedback this has been re-titled "Who > > Inherited NZgate? Portability of IP Addresses") We believe that this > > subject is so important, and one that it is crucial to have ISP and > > other industry input into, that we wish to offer NZNOG members > > some alternatives to discuss. > > > > [snip! snip!] > > As I have already mentioned to Sue, I have too many other things on and > can't spare a day to travel down to Wellington. > > The session sounds like a fine idea however; I do share Andy's > reservations > about whether a closed session is appropriate though, since the real > opportunity ISOCNZ has to add value to the discussions likes in the > education of the user community - keeping them out of a closed room isn't > going to help this much :) > > I plan to have my revised draft finished (well, started :) in the next > couple of days, and I will post that to the list. > > In the interests of the user community, it might make sense to draft a > smaller, more simple document which just explains the issues of address > delegation and ownership from non-NZGATE (i.e. provider-aggregatable) > blocks. If a large number of ISPs are happy to sign their names to it, > it would be a good document to publicise at the ISOCNZ meeting. > > The idea of this new document is, of course, to clarify matters for users, > and to avoid the same provider-independence confusion that we have with > the NZGATE blocks. The document could be extended in the future once we > have collective agreement on how the NZGATE block delegations fit into the > equation. > > If people think this is worth doing, I can have a stab at a first draft -- > however, anybody else who is keen to do it instead is more than welcome ;) > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 > Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

ISOCNZ forum - an idea
by Sue Leader 04 Nov '98

04 Nov '98

Greetings. The Face to Face organising committee has been following the NZNOG discussion on the "Who owns Netgate?" session of Face to Face with interest. (After feedback this has been re-titled "Who Inherited NZgate? Portability of IP Addresses") We believe that this subject is so important, and one that it is crucial to have ISP and other industry input into, that we wish to offer NZNOG members some alternatives to discuss. 1. Come to the whole Forum as it will be worth your while if only from a networking perspective. Investment: $80 + GST members, $130 + GST non-members.* 2. Attend only the "Who Inherited NZgate? Portability of IP Addresses" session at 11:00am. For this we are prepared to reduce the investment to $40.00 + GST, and lunch is included. You will then not be able to attend the pre-11:00am or post-lunch sessions. 3. We are happy to facilitate a pre-Forum 'NZNOG and interest parties' gathering where the group can work through the issues and then attend Face to Face with the intention of reporting on your proceedings, e.g., concensus (if any), action items, and the like. If you wished to designate a "Reporter" they would have their Forum investment waived as do the other lead speakers. 4. It may be possible to set up a lunchtime round-table "closed door" session for NOG's on the day to talk through issues. The outcome of this could be reported back to Face to Face. This would mean re-arranging the agenda, so if this is your preference we would need a definite commitment soon. Please discuss these options - we do want to accommodate NZNOG if we can. If you decide on option 3 we would need notification of this fairly soon so that we can arrange a venue etc. Also we would need a decision on where you would actually want to hold that session (e.g., Auckland, Wellington etc) If you decided on either 1) or 2) then we could facilitate interested parties being invited to attend a post Forum NZNOG meeting. We have discussed this briefly with Andy Linton and he has indicated a willingness to facilitate/chair such a discussion if it were to be in Wellington. (Andy is strongly against the fourth option). If travel costs are one of the problems for attendance of Face to Face, please let the Society know that too and we'll see if we can be of some assistance on a case by case basis. Cordially For the Organising Committee Sue Leader Executive Director ISOCNZ (The Internet Society of New Zealand Inc) http://www.isocnz.org.nz Email:Exe.Dir(a)ISOCNZ.org.nz Voice: +64-4-801-6256 --------- 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: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Joe Abley wrote: >I think a better heading would be: > What can be done about the legacy of NZGATE-delegated addresses within NZ? Ongoing portability of IP addresses. An open discussion on this subject is IMHO an excellent idea but the proposed forum is a) not about this topic, b) it is buried in the following all day programme * Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs Liable? * Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses * Ethics on the Internet * Does the Internet Need Government? * ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest International which I certainly have no desire to sit through, and c) there's a charge to attend. So, while the need for a discussion (and action) is clear, (no pun intended) I have reservations as to this being the right forum for the discussion. Peter Mott wrote: >I think the Internet provider industry needs to be able to speak with a single voice. We can can achieve this by:- > a) seizing the opportunity to grow ISOCNZ by joining up real quick or > b) forming our own industry association sooner rather than later I know a number of people in the Internet community share my reservations about ISOCNZ and have as a result avoided membership. However I think this is a clear opportunity for ISOCNZ to show leadership and, if they do, I for one would be prepared to "get in behind". Otherwise it's got to be option b) and that's probably a lot more painful. Some suggestions for the sort of leadership could be: 1. Change the subject to something more appropriate (Joe's suggestion looks good) 2. Fix a time for the discussion 3. Formally invite (write to? OK e-mail) industry players and ask them to send a rep 4. Treat it as an opportunity to show value for ISOCNZ membership (i.e. show value and we'll join) 5. Call for and distribute some papers in advance (again Joe's kick off paper makes a great starting point) 6. Drop the charge other than for direct expenses (if it's to be in Wellington we have costs enough to incur) How about it ISOCNZ? Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

3 2

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Apologies for the incomplete version sent previously, a slip of the fingers. Groan! Jim Higgins wrote: > Clearly, Robert has a much better solution, which he is keeping from us > at the moment - but I'm sure he will reveal all when he is ready. You give me too much credit I only wish that it were true. Regrettably my motives are much more prosaic. I'm hoping to save myself from sitting through a number of items to which I have nothing to contribute so that I don't miss what I hope will be the 'main event' and in the process save myself $80/$130. Thus far the only 'real' agenda for a forum I can find is on the isocnz web site under Eventz but is for December 96 (can you believe). Can we have a time and a definitive subject for the session on IP addressing? A concession on the entry fee would help me feel better about it too. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

Recall: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Robert Gray would like to recall the message, "ISOCNZ forum". --------- 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: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Jim Higgins wrote: > Clearly, Robert has a much better solution, which he is keeping from us > at the moment - but I'm sure he will reveal all when he is ready. You give me too much creditI wish that were true, regretably my motives are much more prosaic. I'm hoping to save from sitting through a number of items to which I have nothing to contribute so that I don't miss what I hope will be the 'main event' and in the process save myself $80/$130. Thus far the only 'real' agenda for a forum I can find is on the isocnz web site under Eventz but is for December 96 (can you believe). If the subject is re is a don't really lot of Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Frank March 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Apologies to those who will be getting two copies of this; suddenly nznog and isocnz-l seem to be in lockstep; I hope that this condition is temporary! Just a brief comment expanding on what Jim Higgins wrote: Although ISOCNZ cannot dictate policy over IP address numbering in New Zealand, it is in a position (or with a bit of a push will be in such a position), to develop a consensus view amongst the various interest groups. It could even get itself into the position of being able to represent those groups in suitable fora or to external agencies should that become desirable or necessary. This is roughly where it is at (or should be) with the ISP Code of Practice. One of the preconditions for such a development to be possible it clearly needs a much wider membership base than it has at present. I hope that the overall theme of this year's Face to Face will lead in that direction. Frank March Secretary, ISOCNZ > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Higgins [SMTP:jhiggins(a)netedge.co.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:23 AM > To: Joe Abley > Cc: Robert Gray; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; isocnz-l(a)isocnz.org.nz > Subject: Re: ISOCNZ forum > > Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > As I mentioned before, I share reservations that ISOCNZ is an > appropriate > > body to _dictate_ policy on this issue. However, it is probably a good > > forum in which to make the issues more public. > > Joe, I have the same reservations - in fact ISOCNZ is in no position to > do such a thing - even if it wanted to. We have however been asked, by > a number of ISPs and others to do 'something' about this issue and we > feel that trying to get the parties together in a non-threatening > environment is a good start. The solution, whatever it is must be > 'owned' and agreed to by all involved - otherwise it has little chance > of success. > --------- 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: ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Jim Higgins wrote:- >Joe, I have the same reservations - in fact ISOCNZ is in no position to >do such a thing - even if it wanted to. We have however been asked, by >a number of ISPs and others to do 'something' about this issue and we >feel that trying to get the parties together in a non-threatening >environment is a good start. Have you made sure you have a well informed panel so some meaningful discussion can take place? If people are paying money to attend, then there will be an expecation that it will be a professional effort with industry participation. My attempts to find out who is participating so far have drawn a blank. 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

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Colin Jackson 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Peter Mott wrote: >We cant progress an improvement in ISOCNZ by telling them to get their crap >together. It will happen when we all join up and make it into something we >can respect. Absolutely! If you'd like things done differently, the door is open. Come on in and DO it. Colin Jackson Chair, Admin Cttee. --------- 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: ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

>> However, it is probably a good forum in which to make the issues more >>public. >Absolutely no issue but I think we would both like to see more action than >just publicity. I think we all need to stop saying ISOCNZ needs to do something. The reality is they are having a forum to which they are inviting people from all sorts of places. If we dont care about the possiblity of a blind leading the blind session, then we should do nothing. If on the other hand we want people to understand what the issues are really about, then we must be prepared to participate. We cant progress an improvement in ISOCNZ by telling them to get their crap together. It will happen when we all join up and make it into something we can respect. 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

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

On Mon, Nov 02, 1998, Joe Abley wrote: > If you're in Auckland, then it seems there is a bar in the Sky Tower that > will be showing the proceedings on television -- I have been told there is > no charge to attend the Sky Tower screening, other than the onerous > requirement to purchase drinks from the bar. A day spent in a darkened Sky Tower bar watching a broadcast with such riveting items as "Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest" on television? What could I possibly have done that would deserve such an unspeakable punishment? > However, it is probably a good forum in which to make the issues more public. Absolutely no issue but I think we would both like to see more action than just publicity. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Joe Abley wrote:- >Netgate is an operating name for a service of Telecom NZ. I don't think >there is any doubt that if anybody owns Netgate, Telecom NZ does :) Providers who connect to Netgate will know that its a Telecom NZ owned service. They get these regular peices of paper from them demanding money :-) However, most other folk may not know. Netgate, NZGATE, NZIX are words which get thrown around and I can see there is general confusion about what they mean. >Portability of addresses in general is a different issue (and one that is >rather clear-cut for new address allocations); however, it would certainly >benefit from wider exposure at the face-to-face as there is still much >confusion in the user community on this issue. There are more than a few people who believe they "own" address space, and that they have a right to have it routed to whereever they live. And then there are others who think they should be able to own address space so they can move between upstream providers without having to renumber. Can of worms people :-) >Notice I said "can" and not "should" :) I think we should always apsire to do what "should be done" rather than whats possible. It helps stretch our minds a little :-) 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

child pornography
by Joe Abley 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

It has been brought to the attention of our helpdesk that the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.bc-series contains child pornography. This group was not previously on our list of undesirable groups, so I guess it's possible/likely that other providers are carrying this group too. Our ops people will be dropping this group in the morning. You may want to check your news servers and take appropriate action. -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

[jabley: ]
by Joe Abley 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

Hi, I just noticed the following in the ISSUES section of the recent posting of the November ISOCNZ face-to-face: > THE ISSUES: > > [snip!] > > * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses > Netgate is an operating name for a service of Telecom NZ. I don't think there is any doubt that if anybody owns Netgate, Telecom NZ does :) I think you meant NZGATE. NZGATE no longer exists as an operational entity - I don't think that _ownership_ of NZGATE is a useful concept. Portability of addresses in general is a different issue (and one that is rather clear-cut for new address allocations); however, it would certainly benefit from wider exposure at the face-to-face as there is still much confusion in the user community on this issue. I think a better heading would be: * What can be done about the legacy of NZGATE-delegated addresses within NZ? Ongoing portability of IP addresses. Notice I said "can" and not "should" :) Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Mark Davies 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:15:29 +1300 > Does this mean that it will cost $130+GST to watch the action from the Sky > Tower? (what about the live MBONE feed? ;) No, its free from the Sky Tower. MBONE would be nice but you really need the infrastructure set up in advance and more or less permanent --- This of course would be a good thing in general. cheers mark --------- 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: Paradise IP #
by Simon Blake 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Shane Cole wrote: > Hows the route manager project coming along? Fine - I'm just waiting on an ASN from APNIC - the route servers are all ready to rumba, but there isn't much point in setting everybody up to use private ASN, just to change later. Cheers Si -- Simon Blake simon(a)katipo.co.nz Katipo Communications +64 25 300 825 --------- 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: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Interim programme below:- ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1998 FACE TO FACE "THE INTERNET - TOOL OR TOY?" THE ISSUES: * Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs Liable? * Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses * Ethics on the Internet * Does the Internet Need Government? * ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest International Followed by: * ISOCNZ Annual General Meeting WHERE: (e)Vision House, 282 Wakefield Street, Wellington AND: Live Broadcast** to the Altos Bar, Sky City, Auckland WHEN: Friday November 20 1998 8:30-3:30 - followed by AGM in Wellington at 4:30pm WHO: Anyone with an interest in the Hottest Issues on the Internet in 1998 ENTRY: Members: $80.00 + GST Non-Members: $130 + GST ** Conference Only 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

Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off >Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the >elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is >still available at >http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and share views. 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

RE: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Robert Gray 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Peter Mott wrote today: > Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion > on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? This too is an excellent idea, is there a time set and do we need to register or anything? Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

>As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am, >what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value >to this issue? My reply may be off topic, but you did ask the question, so here goes ... Today, I would say ISOCNZ is not in a very good position to add value to this issue or any other industry specific issue which may come along. I say that because, whilst ISOCNZ has the best intentions in the world, it has very view internet providers actively participating, and has a council which addresses issues and makes decisions on things they consider important to them at the time. It is therefore unlikely they can represent our industry particularly well for the time being. The move to run a forum on issues such as censorhip, ip addressing, and domain registration is a clear signal they want industry to participate. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I think the Internet provider industry needs to be able to speak with a single voice. We can can achieve this by:- a) seizing the opportunity to grow ISOCNZ by joining up real quick or b) forming our own industry association sooner rather than later Whether NZNOG is a part of, or drives this initiative is a question for us all, but I suggest that action is required. Whilst the IP addressing issue can be seen in the context of engineering stuff for industry players to sort and agree on, there are things happening in much higher places than most of us care to live, the outcome of which may be industry loosing some ability to manage itself. The question of IP management is as vexed an argument as domain name management, except the stakes are much higher. As things evolve, the respect held for RFC's will erode, and so we will need to look for other ways to ensure issues which concern participants of this list can be addressed. 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

1 0

RE: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Frank March 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

This issue is of fundamental interest to anyone concerned with the commercial integrity and long term stability of the Internet in New Zealand. Therefore it a matter of concern to me in the policy capacity recognised in the sig below. Wearing a different hat, my association with ISOCNZ, there is a need for someone *representative of the Internet community as a whole* to take on responsibility for ensuring that the Internet is a stable and reliable platform for e commerce. Although ISOCNZ is not there yet, it does have that potential (see for example, David Farrar's vision statement http://www.dpf.ac.nz/isocnz/vision.htm; which I by and large support) Ideologically and practically, there is strong disinterest on the part of the Government to regulate any matter relating to the Internet. But I have been lead to believe that the IP address structure is of sufficient concern that, if there was any suggestion that the NZgate 'share' of the IP address space was at risk of monopoly 'capture' by any group which was not representative of the interests of the Internet users as a whole, the Government might take another look. I will be developing some of this at the Face to Face meeting on 20 November. So my comment on the question raised by Joe's most recent post, reproduced in full below is: who else, other than ISOCNZ? And if this is not 'value add' what would be of greater importance? This is also not a loaded question. :) Of course, we are looking at an operational issue. Although, in fact, we are looking at policy underlying an operational issue; that is governance, actually. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:32 PM > To: 2Day Chief Enthusiast; Donald Neal; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand > > On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 12:01:17PM +1300, 2Day Chief Enthusiast wrote: > > This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off > > > > >Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the > > >elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal > is > > >still available at > > >http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . > > > > Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion > > on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? > > > > Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and > share > > views. > > Although there are commercial issues surrounding the use of NZGATE numbers > in networks today, the underlying motive for reform is the health of the > network - specifically, the advertisement of long-prefix routes. This > aspect > is clearly an operational issue, rather than one of governance -- and has > its roots in _global_ operational policy, rather than that of just NZ. > > As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am, > what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value > to this issue? > > This isn't a loaded question :) I'm just interested. > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 > Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 --------- 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: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Donald Neal 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is still available at http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . Joe, do you have any plans to revise your proposal in the light of feedback you've seen since? - Donald Neal --------- 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 [off-topic]
by Joe Abley 27 Oct '98

27 Oct '98

Hi all, This is off-topic, although (I hope) of sufficient interest that I don't get engulfed in anti-spam hate-mail :) A list has been in operation for some time now, hosted by the University of Waikato, intended as an open forum for the discussion of operational issues between network operators in New Zealand. The list's membership is not (currently) completely representative of all network operators in NZ, but currently has subscribers from (in the order that people have subscribed): CLEAR, NetGate, Netlink, ICONZ, Waikato University, Telecom NZ, Iprolink, National Library, Xtra, CityLink, OnTheNet, Paradise.Net, Saturn, Voyager, Ascend, Cisco, IHUG, Plain Communications, Tasman Solutions, Clearview, Globe Net, the Ministry of Commerce, Internet Exchange and Victoria University of Wellington. The list has proved useful for announcing transient network issues affecting other providers, arranging peering between networks, and more recently for discussions relating to IP numbering in New Zealand. This note is really just an attempt to widen the membership of the list, in case there are network operators who are not aware of it. A brief description of the list follows, courtesy of Donald Neal of Telecom NZ. Thank you for your time! Now - back to the main feature. --------- >From: Donald Neal <D1NC(a)telecom.co.nz> Subject: The New Zealand Network Operators' Group Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:10:27 +1200 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. 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. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and 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). 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 --------- -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 27 Oct '98

27 Oct '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. 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. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and 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). 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

Arrgh! READ ME
by Joe Abley 26 Oct '98

26 Oct '98

Arron/Sandy, You people seem to be advertising an awful lot of crap to us over NZIX; the following is an example (209.155.82.18 is ftp.cdrom.com) ba1.acld#ping ftp.cdrom.com Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 209.155.82.18, timeout is 2 seconds: .!!.. Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1108/1388/1668 ms ba1.acld#show ip route 209.155.82.18 Routing entry for 209.155.82.18/32 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 5000 Tag 9999, type extern 2, forward metric 100 Redistributing via ospf 1 Last update from 203.97.1.70 on ATM5/0.1, 1d00h ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 203.97.1.70, from 203.97.1.82, 1d00h ago, via ATM5/0.1 Route metric is 5000, traffic share count is 1 ba1.acld#traceroute 209.155.82.18 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to wcarchive.cdrom.com (209.155.82.18) 1 ba1-ser0-15.hmtn.clix.net.nz (203.97.1.70) 32 msec 12 msec 16 msec 2 ngthn1-b1.nzix.waikato.ac.nz (140.200.128.9) [AS 681] 136 msec 20 msec 28 msec 3 s6-1.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.125) [AS 4648] 36 msec 32 msec 28 msec 4 f0-0.akbr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.58) [AS 4648] 2144 msec * * 5 This seems bad! Anybody else seeing this? I will be blocking OSPF updates from NetGate over NZIX very shortly... Any feedback or confirmation from anybody else would be most welcome. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 3

Fw: Arrgh! READ ME
by Tony Wicks 25 Oct '98

25 Oct '98

Well, thats what you get for working at 10:30pm on a public holiday !.. hold on, so am I..... damn.... -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: arrons(a)netgate.net.nz <arrons(a)netgate.net.nz>; s.davidson(a)netgate.net.nz <s.davidson(a)netgate.net.nz> Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Monday, 26 October 1998 22:43 Subject: Re: Arrgh! READ ME >Well... > >I know that I'm talking to myself here :) but it seems like I overreacted >somewhat; on closer examination, the only erroneous route I can find from >140.200.128.9 is for 209.155.82.18/32. I can't find anything else that >shouldn't be there. > >It was just the first thing I tried, and so I assumed the worst :( > >209.155/16 is definitely operated by CRL though, and so the host route >for 209.155.82.18/32 _is_ bogus. > >Many apologies for casting aspersions on NetGate's OSPF speaker! > >Yours in drugs, > > >Joe > >-- >Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 >Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 > --------- 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: ?
by Michael Newbery 22 Oct '98

22 Oct '98

Seems good to me. Is item 2 there explicitly to provide for the "it's Friday, let's go to the pub" postings? -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-915 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- 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 Donald Neal 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

NZNOG Subscribers, Below is a suggested Acceptable Use Policy, based on the one for the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list which I posted last week. I believe it accurately reflects the use of this list, but I'd like to hear any comments on it. Donald Neal NZNOG list owner/administrator/muggins ---------- Proposed 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 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. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Robert Gray 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

>This is only one possible solution. This document is DRAFT. This document >does not attempt to define policy; it is merely intended to provoke some >useful discussion. I'd like to propose something of a variation to Joe's 'One Possible Solution' to the addressing issues. This is based on a little research and a selective interpretation of the following references: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html <http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html> Ripe-160: Guidelines for Setting up a Local Internet Registry at the RIPE NCC [and if you don't think this is relevant take a peek at http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html <http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html> ] http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt <http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt> ' Local IR's are of three types: 'Service Provider', 'Enterprise' and 'National'. An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organisation that supplies Internet connectivity to its customers or users. An ISP can become a local IR by agreeing to certain conditions (see APNIC-011). A 'National' local IR's handle all requests from organisations that have no connection to the Internet at present or planned. In addition, National IRs may also delegate addresses to ISPs within a national context. 'National' IR's are often run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community.....' http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt <http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt> 'With respect to IP address 'ownership', service providers have the option of treating the sub-delegation of networks to customers as permanent or, if explicitly specified in the service provider's contractual agreement, temporary. It must be stressed that without a contractual agreement stating otherwise, assignment of networks to end users is always considered permanent (e.g., the 'ownership' of the network is transferred to the client).' The essence of the proposed variation is that instead of APNIC, a 'National' IR would be established in NZ (run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community). This 'National' IR to take over management of the NZGATE space for use as PI space for those who need it. This would not preclude any organisation obtaining space elsewhere. Clearly taking over the NZGATE space would require consent and co-operation from APNIC but with a broad based approach from NZ ISP's surely this would be possible? The following suggested changes to Joe's document are not intended to be complete and are also in draft form only. This is to give a general flavour, provide a basis for discussion and goes something like this: >2.3. Administrative control of NZGATE blocks returned to APNIC >All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be >returned to APNIC for administration. No further delegations from the >NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider. All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be passed to the 'National' IR for administration. No further delegations from the NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider. >2.4. Forced renumbering >No end-user network using NZGATE subnets should be obliged to renumber as >part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]). No end-user network using PI (NZGATE) subnets should be obliged to renumber as part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]) however an annual charge may be levied by the 'National' IR. [to act as a disincentive to retaining unused addresses and help cover costs]. >2.5. Process for extending address space delegations >Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should >be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing in order to obtain >their larger address range. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned >to APNIC by the ISP. Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing (PA) in order to obtain their larger address range. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the ISP. Any provider network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber to an alternative PI range provided by the 'National' IR if a contiguous allocation cannot be provided to obtain their larger address range. >2.6. Process for managing ISP-hopping by end-user networks >Any end-user network that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change ISPs >must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The >released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the former ISP. Any end-user network that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change ISPs must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the former ISP. >2.7. Process for managing ISP-hopping by national providers >Any national provider that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change >global transit providers must renumber its own infrastructure using >provider-based addressing provided by the new global transit provider. >Customers of the national provider who use NZGATE numbers will not be >required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). Any national provider that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change global transit providers will not be required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). I have retained the terms 'end user' 'national provider' and 'global transit providers' assuming I know what they mean but I think some form of definition would be in order. Constructive comments (and other responses) to the list please. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.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

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

Hi. > It would be useful to know what size blocks the major US backbone > providers see as viable entries. Currently they will accept a /24 but > I've seen numbers like /18 or /19 bandied around in the past as the size > of blocks that will be routable on the backbone for the forseeable > future. (I recall Sprint for example saying that they would support > blocks of this size.) Well Sprint only accepts /24 in historical ranges (to which the NZGATE addresses belong). Current practice seems to be to filter at the minimum allocation size for the /8's. For all new and assignments in the recent past this seems to be /19 (from all registries), for older addresses this was /24. Because of the dramatic slowdown in router table growth, there doesn't seem to be any forseeable technical reason to have to alter current practice. Should growth threaten to become unmanagable, increasing the minimum allocation size to /18 or /17 could slow growth, without having to attempt to retroactively assume a new minimum allocation size. It's difficult to retroactively try to filter out routes shorter than the minimum allocation size at the time they were issued as this results in cutting onself off from too much of the Internet. And so for commercial reasons this has not happened (except perhaps briefly) and cannot be reasonably expected to happen. I cannot find information at APNIC for what they consider to be the minimum allocation sizes for 202/8 nor 203/8 -- something we should find out and (attempt to) correct if desirable/necessary. -Craig --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 20 Oct '98

20 Oct '98

Hi. > Just because network addresses could be considered portable a few years ago > doesn't make it so forever - the network is changing, and best current > practices change with it. True, but if you look at best current practice, that does not including route filtering more strictly than the minimum allocation size (i believe it was tried and rejected :-), and it does not involve restrictions on portability. It's easy to argue that within the NZGATE addresses the minimum allocation size is /24. There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems. I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. How about we use: You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was allocated to you (or else you renumber). This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership". It would seem prudent for us to at least look at the current allocations and estimate the amount of address space assigned to ISPs and to end users. I suspect there is only a small percentage of end user blocks. And if this is the case there would be very little practical difference between this and the draft's rules. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 10

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 18 Oct '98

18 Oct '98

Hi. > I took another look at this data and I see some differences. I see a lot too :-( Turns out my program for doing joins on CIDR blocks had a bug and that the inetnum's in the APNIC database couldn't always be rewritten as a single CIDR block (e.g. 202.36.149.0-202.36.153.255) which i had assumed... However, i guess after the beers on Friday this is no longer needed :-) -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

mail storm via 203.98.24.1
by Joe Abley 18 Oct '98

18 Oct '98

Hi, Someone is using 203.98.24.1 (pcombo.co.nz) to relay mail to the CLEAR Net MX hosts. Since 00:16:57 this morning there have been several hundreds of thousands of attempts to deliver mail to CLEAR Net, which have been blocked at CLEAR Net since the senders' domain is not real. Oct 17 00:16:57 fep4 sendmail[25135]: Ruleset check_mail (<hacka(a)udie.com>) rejection: 451 <hacka(a)udie.com>... Sender domain (udie.com) not found in DNS, or not compliant with section 6 of RFC822 Oct 17 00:16:57 fep4 sendmail[25135]: AAA25135: from=<hacka(a)udie.com>, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, relay=pcombo.co.nz [203.98.24.1] Oct 17 00:16:57 fep3 sendmail[1621]: Ruleset check_mail (<hacka(a)udie.com>) rejection: 451 <hacka(a)udie.com>... Sender domain (udie.com) not found in DNS, or not compliant with section 6 of RFC822 Oct 17 00:16:57 fep3 sendmail[1621]: AAA01621: from=<hacka(a)udie.com>, size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, relay=pcombo.co.nz [203.98.24.1] The offending relay is reached from CLEAR via Xtra and onthenet: traceroute to 203.98.24.1 (203.98.24.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 router (203.97.2.225) 3.125 ms 2.839 ms 2.940 ms 2 d1.test.clear.net.nz (203.167.224.30) 26.798 ms 27.121 ms 26.944 ms 3 ba1-atm1-0-1.acld.clix.net.nz (203.167.224.1) 27.307 ms ba2-atm1-0-1.acld.clix.net.nz (203.167.224.2) 27.199 ms 27.307 ms 4 ba1-ser0-15.hmtn.clix.net.nz (203.97.1.70) 37.072 ms s3-0.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.33) 30.615 ms 29.995 ms 5 xtra.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.46) 29.765 ms ngthn1-b1.nzix.waikato.ac.nz (140.200.128.9) 34.387 ms 36.746 ms 6 192.168.200.241 (192.168.200.241) 35.184 ms 35.428 ms s6-1.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.125) 42.860 ms 7 xtra.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.46) 38.670 ms 34.878 ms 53.744 ms 8 192.168.30.18 (192.168.30.18) 65.403 ms 192.168.200.241 (192.168.200.241) 42.500 ms 192.168.30.18 (192.168.30.18) 100.988 ms 9 otn2.gw.onthenet.co.nz (210.55.215.247) 48.387 ms 72.757 ms pcombo.co.nz (203.98.24.1) 131.373 ms I have just checked 203.98.24.1 from tardis.patho.gen.nz, and it is indeed a promiscuous relay: tardis[5]% telnet pcombo.co.nz 25 Trying 203.98.24.1... Connected to pcombo.co.nz. Escape character is '^]'. 220 pcombo.co.nz ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:01:33 +1245 HELO blah 250 pcombo.co.nz Hello tardis.patho.gen.nz [203.97.2.226], pleased to meet you MAIL FROM:<moo(a)cow.dog.horse> 250 <moo(a)cow.dog.horse>... Sender ok RCPT TO:<jabley(a)patho.gen.nz> 250 <jabley(a)patho.gen.nz>... Recipient ok DATA 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself From: moo(a)cow.dog.horse To: jabley(a)patho.gen.nz Subject: oh no This is an open relay . 250 KAA19201 Message accepted for delivery QUIT 221 pcombo.co.nz closing connection Connection closed by foreign host. which resulted in the following delivery attempt to tardis: Oct 17 10:05:58 tardis sendmail[21233]: KAA21233: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=<moo(a)cow.dog.horse>, relay=root(a)pcombo.co.nz [203.98.24.1], reject=501 <moo(a)cow.dog.horse>... Sender domain must exist Until it is evident that these antics have stopped, we have applied packet filters to refuse connections from 203.98.24.1 on tcp/25. We would be grateful if appropriate people at Xtra and/or onthenet could take similar action or otherwise arrange for this to stop. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)patho.gen.nz> --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 1

Re: mail storm via 203.98.24.1
by Norman Burgess 18 Oct '98

18 Oct '98

Well, it was early morning Saturday that I discovered this was happening .. it is on the go again right now! Take some action please. Regards Norman Burgess ---------- > From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)patho.gen.nz> > To: soa(a)xtra.co.nz; abuse(a)xtra.co.nz; postmaster(a)xtra.co.nz; info(a)onthenet.co.nz; soa(a)onthenet.co.nz > Cc: nburgess(a)clear.net.nz; bob(a)wonderland.org.nz; olof(a)clear.net.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: mail storm via 203.98.24.1 > Date: Saturday, 17 October 1998 10:23 > > Hi, > > Someone is using 203.98.24.1 (pcombo.co.nz) to relay mail to the CLEAR Net > MX hosts. Since 00:16:57 this morning there have been several hundreds of > thousands of attempts to deliver mail to CLEAR Net, which have been blocked > at CLEAR Net since the senders' domain is not real. > > Oct 17 00:16:57 fep4 sendmail[25135]: Ruleset check_mail (<hacka(a)udie.com>) > rejection: 451 <hacka(a)udie.com>... Sender domain (udie.com) not found in DNS, > or not compliant with section 6 of RFC822 > > Oct 17 00:16:57 fep4 sendmail[25135]: AAA25135: from=<hacka(a)udie.com>, > size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, relay=pcombo.co.nz > [203.98.24.1] > > Oct 17 00:16:57 fep3 sendmail[1621]: Ruleset check_mail (<hacka(a)udie.com>) > rejection: 451 <hacka(a)udie.com>... Sender domain (udie.com) not found in DNS, > or not compliant with section 6 of RFC822 > > Oct 17 00:16:57 fep3 sendmail[1621]: AAA01621: from=<hacka(a)udie.com>, size=0, > class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=ESMTP, relay=pcombo.co.nz [203.98.24.1] > > The offending relay is reached from CLEAR via Xtra and onthenet: > > traceroute to 203.98.24.1 (203.98.24.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 router (203.97.2.225) 3.125 ms 2.839 ms 2.940 ms > 2 d1.test.clear.net.nz (203.167.224.30) 26.798 ms 27.121 ms 26.944 ms > 3 ba1-atm1-0-1.acld.clix.net.nz (203.167.224.1) 27.307 ms ba2-atm1-0-1.acld.clix.net.nz (203.167.224.2) 27.199 ms 27.307 ms > 4 ba1-ser0-15.hmtn.clix.net.nz (203.97.1.70) 37.072 ms s3-0.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.33) 30.615 ms 29.995 ms > 5 xtra.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.46) 29.765 ms ngthn1-b1.nzix.waikato.ac.nz (140.200.128.9) 34.387 ms 36.746 ms > 6 192.168.200.241 (192.168.200.241) 35.184 ms 35.428 ms s6-1.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.125) 42.860 ms > 7 xtra.akcr1.netgate.net.nz (202.37.245.46) 38.670 ms 34.878 ms 53.744 ms > 8 192.168.30.18 (192.168.30.18) 65.403 ms 192.168.200.241 (192.168.200.241) 42.500 ms 192.168.30.18 (192.168.30.18) 100.988 ms > 9 otn2.gw.onthenet.co.nz (210.55.215.247) 48.387 ms 72.757 ms pcombo.co.nz (203.98.24.1) 131.373 ms > > I have just checked 203.98.24.1 from tardis.patho.gen.nz, and it is indeed > a promiscuous relay: > > tardis[5]% telnet pcombo.co.nz 25 > Trying 203.98.24.1... > Connected to pcombo.co.nz. > Escape character is '^]'. > 220 pcombo.co.nz ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.7/8.8.5; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:01:33 +1245 > HELO blah > 250 pcombo.co.nz Hello tardis.patho.gen.nz [203.97.2.226], pleased to meet you > MAIL FROM:<moo(a)cow.dog.horse> > 250 <moo(a)cow.dog.horse>... Sender ok > RCPT TO:<jabley(a)patho.gen.nz> > 250 <jabley(a)patho.gen.nz>... Recipient ok > DATA > 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself > From: moo(a)cow.dog.horse > To: jabley(a)patho.gen.nz > Subject: oh no > > This is an open relay > . > 250 KAA19201 Message accepted for delivery > QUIT > 221 pcombo.co.nz closing connection > Connection closed by foreign host. > > which resulted in the following delivery attempt to tardis: > > Oct 17 10:05:58 tardis sendmail[21233]: KAA21233: ruleset=check_mail, > arg1=<moo(a)cow.dog.horse>, relay=root(a)pcombo.co.nz [203.98.24.1], reject=501 > <moo(a)cow.dog.horse>... Sender domain must exist > > Until it is evident that these antics have stopped, we have applied packet > filters to refuse connections from 203.98.24.1 on tcp/25. > > We would be grateful if appropriate people at Xtra and/or onthenet could > take similar action or otherwise arrange for this to stop. > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Abley <jabley(a)patho.gen.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

alcohol
by Joe Abley 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Apologies for the very beery nature of these messages. Just in case anybody turns up and wonders where all the free beer is, I won't be over at Galbraith's until shortly after 6. Note that this is not an implicit confirmation of the availabity of free beer :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

Drinks Tonight?!?
by Rowan Smith 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Between all the intelligent talk about renumbering New Zealands IP Address space did anyone actually commit to going to Galbraiths tonight for a beer ot not? Remember you only have to agree with Joe until hes forked over for the alcohol, then you can start arguing again!! -Rowan

2 1

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Hi. Here is a table of OSPF advertisements at NZIX and BGP announcements in Europe, the AS number for the corresponding BGP advertisment as seen in Europe, and the first descr line in the APNIC database. It may give a good indication of the current use of NZGATE (and NZNIC) addresses. If the /16's are removed, would this represent (say within 20%) of the address space in use today? -Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 202.27.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.100.0/22 4768 Bell South Auckland 202.27.103.0/24 4768 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.104.0/22 7714 Nelson City Council 202.27.113.0/24 4648 Combines Rural Traders, Otago 202.27.115.0/24 4768 Bay of Plenty Polytech 202.27.119.0/24 4763 CEDENCO FOODS LTD 202.27.120.0/22 4768 Asia Pacific World Travel Ltd 202.27.120.0/24 4768 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.128.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.132.0/24 4648 Tip Top Ice Cream Company Ltd 202.27.138.0/24 4648 Telecom Mobile Communications 202.27.140.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.146.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.150.0/24 4648 Telecom Directories NZ Limited 202.27.151.0/24 4648 Telecom Directories Limited 202.27.156.0/22 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.16.0/20 4657 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd./Information Technology Division 202.27.160.0/24 4648 The Great Elk Company Limited 202.27.169.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Ltd 202.27.176.0/21 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.184.0/23 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.186.0/23 4648 NetAccess 202.27.192.0/24 4648 Madison Systems Limited 202.27.193.0/24 4648 IDG Communications Limited 202.27.194.0/24 4648 Hybrid Systems Limited 202.27.195.0/24 4648 New Zealand Dairy Foods 202.27.197.0/24 4763 New Zealand Microcomputer Club Inc 202.27.198.0/24 4763 Hypercom Communication Technologies Ltd 202.27.200.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.201.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.203.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.204.0/24 4648 NZNET Internet Services Ltd. 202.27.208.0/24 4648 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.27.209.0/24 4648 Telecom Business Systems 202.27.210.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.211.0/24 4763 Phillips Fox 202.27.212.0/24 4763 Kings College Auckland 202.27.213.0/24 4763 Pharos System Ltd 202.27.214.0/24 4763 MaC Consultants 202.27.215.0/24 4763 Citadel Computer Systems Ltd 202.27.216.0/24 4763 Building Information 202.27.217.0/24 4763 Datasure Management Systems 202.27.218.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.219.0/24 4763 I-Sys Training Services 202.27.222.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.223.0/24 4763 Show-Off New Zealand Limited 202.27.232.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.234.0/24 4648 Wickliffe Press Limited 202.27.236.0/24 4763 Howick Intermediate School 202.27.240.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.241.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.242.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.243.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.244.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.247.0/24 4763 Gisborne District Council 202.27.248.0/24 4763 Netbyte Internet Service Provider 202.27.250.0/24 4763 W. Stevenson & Sons Ltd. 202.27.251.0/24 4763 Harrahs Sky City 202.27.252.0/24 4648 Lion Nathan Limited 202.27.254.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.255.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Limited 202.27.34.0/24 7714 Marine-Air Systems Ltd. 202.27.40.0/21 7714 Fujitsu New Zealand Limited 202.27.54.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.60.0/22 4648 J.D. Edwards 202.27.64.0/22 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.66.0/24 7714 Bits & Bytes 202.27.68.0/24 7714 Government Within Reach 202.27.70.0/24 7714 Association Of University Staff 202.27.71.0/24 7714 Crown Institute Of Studies 202.27.72.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.76.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.78.0/23 7714 New Zealand Society of Accountants 202.27.81.0/24 4768 IT Communications Ltd 202.27.82.0/24 7714 Haines Recruitment Advertising 202.27.83.0/24 7714 NZ Products and Services 202.27.85.0/24 4648 Wanganui Polytechnic Internet 202.27.86.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.87.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.88.0/22 7714 Brooker's Ltd 202.27.92.0/22 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.96.0/24 4648 Tauranga District Library 202.27.99.0/24 4648 Health Research Council of New Zealand 202.36.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.103.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.110.0/24 4648 International Pacific College 202.36.111.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls Office Products 202.36.112.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls Ltd, National Office 202.36.113.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls School Supplies 202.36.114.0/24 7714 Diagnostic Laboratory 202.36.121.0/24 4648 Napier Computer Systems 202.36.122.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.123.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.124.0/24 4648 Shirley Boys High School 202.36.125.0/24 4648 Shirley Boys High School 202.36.134.0/23 4648 Horticulture and Food Research Institute Limited 202.36.137.0/24 7714 Ministry for the Environment 202.36.140.0/24 4648 OTC OFFICE SUPPLIES LTD. 202.36.141.0/24 7714 Wellington College of Education 202.36.147.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.150.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.151.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.152.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.153.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.154.0/24 7714 Manukau City Council 202.36.155.0/24 4648 TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL 202.36.157.0/24 7714 Genesis Research and Development Corporation Ltd 202.36.162.0/23 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.164.0/22 7714 Adis International 202.36.170.0/24 4768 EARTHLIGHT COMMUNICATIONS LTD 202.36.171.0/24 7714 CPS Systems (NZ) Ltd 202.36.173.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.174.0/24 4648 Ecolink Networking Service 202.36.175.0/24 4648 Northland Regional Council 202.36.178.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.179.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.181.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.192.0/22 7714 Computer Systems Implementation Limited 202.36.196.0/24 7714 General Automation 202.36.198.0/24 7714 Interconnect, Ltd. 202.36.202.0/24 4768 Business Computers Ltd. 202.36.204.0/23 4648 Actrix Networks Ltd 202.36.206.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.207.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.208.0/24 4648 Production Engineeering (New Zealand) Ltd. 202.36.209.0/24 4763 Internet Hawkes Bay Limited 202.36.210.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants Ltd 202.36.214.0/23 4805 Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council 202.36.218.0/24 4648 Allied Press Limited 202.36.220.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.221.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.224.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.226.0/24 4648 Internet Connectivity Associates 202.36.227.0/24 4768 Serious Information Services 202.36.229.0/24 7714 Sofrana Utilities 202.36.230.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.231.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.235.0/24 7714 CED Distributors Ltd 202.36.239.0/24 7714 I-Max 202.36.240.0/24 7714 Binary Brothers 202.36.244.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.245.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.251.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.252.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.28.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.29.0/24 7714 MAF Fisheries Marine Research 202.36.30.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.31.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.32.0/24 4648 Delphic Medical Systems Ltd. 202.36.33.0/24 7714 Television New Zealand 202.36.34.0/24 7714 Building Research Association of NZ 202.36.35.0/24 4740 Galen Group 202.36.36.0/22 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.36.43.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.44.0/24 7714 Scientific Software and Systems Ltd. 202.36.45.0/24 7714 Eagle Technology Group 202.36.46.0/24 7714 Lynx Communications 202.36.60.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.64.0/22 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.36.68.0/23 4648 Financial Systems Limited 202.36.7.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.70.0/24 7714 Kiwi BBS System 202.36.72.0/24 7714 NetLink network 202.36.75.0/24 4763 Tairawhiti Polytechnic 202.36.76.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.77.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.80.0/21 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.80.0/24 7714 GEAC Computers NZ Limited 202.36.83.0/24 4763 Com Tech (N.Z.) Limited 202.36.91.0/24 4768 Clearview Communications Ltd 202.36.94.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.37.0.0/16 4648 202.37.0.0/20 4648 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand 202.37.0.0/20 7714 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand 202.37.100.0/24 4648 Cave Rock Software Limited 202.37.101.0/24 4648 MacAccess 202.37.102.0/24 4648 Christchurch Schools 202.37.104.0/24 4648 Riccarton High School 202.37.105.0/24 4648 Riccarton High School 202.37.106.0/24 4648 Sirranet Ltd 202.37.107.0/24 4648 Sirranet Ltd 202.37.108.0/24 4648 Hindin Communications Ltd. 202.37.111.0/24 4648 Hindin Communications Ltd. 202.37.112.0/24 7714 PlaNet FreeNZ ISP 202.37.114.0/24 7714 Christ's College 202.37.116.0/24 4648 Piopio College 202.37.117.0/24 4763 Lynfield College 202.37.118.0/24 4763 West Auckland Education Centre 202.37.120.0/24 4648 Macpac Wilderness Equipment Limited 202.37.127.0/24 4648 Email-Centre 202.37.129.0/24 4648 E-VerNet Ltd 202.37.132.0/24 4740 CASystems 202.37.135.0/24 4740 Datamatic 202.37.137.0/24 4648 MegaDyne Communications Ltd 202.37.138.0/23 4648 MegaDyne Communications Ltd 202.37.140.0/22 4648 Geothermal Energy NZ LTD 202.37.144.0/21 4648 202.37.156.0/22 4768 Ciga Computers Ltd 202.37.160.0/24 4763 New Zealand Funds Management Ltd 202.37.162.0/24 4648 Designer Technology Limited 202.37.165.0/24 4648 New Zealand Trade Centre 202.37.166.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.167.0/24 4648 Worldnet BBS 202.37.168.0/24 4763 Worldnet BBS 202.37.169.0/24 4763 AGB Research NZ Limited 202.37.170.0/24 4648 Pacific Business Systems 202.37.171.0/24 4648 Financial & Media Services (NZ) Ltd, Auckland 202.37.173.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.176.0/23 4763 202.37.176.0/24 4763 Cypher Systems Ltd 202.37.181.0/24 4648 CORPORATE SOFTWARE NZ 202.37.182.0/24 4648 The Atlantean Connection Ltd 202.37.184.0/22 4648 Intermilk 202.37.188.0/22 4768 Southern InterNet Services Ltd 202.37.192.0/23 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.192.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.193.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.194.0/24 4648 Canuck Computer Services NZ 202.37.194.1/32 4648 Canuck Computer Services NZ 202.37.197.0/24 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.37.200.0/22 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.37.21.0/24 4648 Ministry of Forestry 202.37.218.0/23 4768 Enhanced Information Systems 202.37.222.0/24 4648 SEACOH Training Institute 202.37.223.0/24 4763 Pasadena Intermediate School 202.37.224.0/21 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand Wellington 202.37.23.0/24 7714 Ministry Of Agriculture 202.37.232.0/24 4648 New Lynn Database Limited 202.37.234.0/24 4648 Pearson Davis Ltd Advertising 202.37.235.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.236.0/22 4648 Telecom Internet Services 202.37.24.0/24 4648 Butterworths of NZ Ltd 202.37.240.0/23 4648 2Day Internet Limited 202.37.244.0/24 4648 202.37.245.0/24 4648 202.37.245.176/30 4648 202.37.245.180/30 4648 202.37.245.32/30 4648 202.37.245.40/30 4648 202.37.245.42/32 4648 202.37.248.0/24 4648 Meadow Fresh Foods 202.37.249.0/24 4648 Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited 202.37.250.0/23 4648 Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited 202.37.252.0/24 4648 Level 5, CMC Building, 89 Courtnay Place 202.37.253.0/24 4648 Molesworth House, 101 Molesworth Street 202.37.254.0/24 2687 Paxus House, Boulcott Street 202.37.27.0/24 7714 Electricity Market Company Limited 202.37.32.0/23 7714 Ministry of Education 202.37.42.0/24 4648 Southland Polytech 202.37.43.0/24 4648 Southland Polytech 202.37.44.0/24 4648 James Cook High School 202.37.45.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Ltd 202.37.48.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.49.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.50.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.51.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.52.0/24 7714 Ministry of Fisheries 202.37.54.0/24 7714 N.Z Telecommunications System Support Center Ltd 202.37.56.0/23 7714 A.J Park And Son 202.37.60.0/22 7714 Whangarei District Council 202.37.64.0/21 4763 NetLink network 202.37.64.0/24 4763 Auckland City Council 202.37.68.0/24 4763 202.37.69.0/24 4763 202.37.70.0/24 4763 202.37.71.0/24 4763 202.37.72.0/23 7714 202.37.74.0/24 4648 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited 202.37.75.0/24 4763 Orion Systems Limited 202.37.76.0/24 4648 Optimation New Zealand Ltd 202.37.77.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.78.0/24 4763 Auckland 202.37.79.0/24 4648 Weta Internet Services 202.37.81.0/24 4648 Diagnostic Laboratory 202.37.84.0/24 4648 P&O Services (NZ) Ltd 202.37.85.0/24 7714 OSI Software Limited 202.37.86.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.87.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.88.0/24 4648 The University of Auckland (2nd) DMZ 202.37.89.0/24 4648 Northland Regional Council 202.37.93.0/24 2687 Honda NZ Ltd 202.37.94.0/24 4763 2Day Internet Limited 202.37.96.0/23 4648 Tait Electronics 202.37.99.0/24 4648 Christchurch School of Medicine 202.49.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.0.0/21 4648 Otago Polytechnic 202.49.0.0/21 4768 Otago Polytechnic 202.49.104.0/24 4648 SEACOH Training Institute 202.49.107.0/24 4648 Multimedia Systems Limited, Auckland 202.49.115.0/24 4648 Internet Southland 202.49.116.0/22 4648 Dunedin City Council 202.49.120.0/24 4648 Dunstan Software 202.49.121.0/24 4648 Internet Southland 202.49.122.0/24 4648 Apple Education Centre 202.49.125.0/24 4648 South Net Ltd 202.49.128.0/21 4768 BCL Ltd 202.49.136.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.137.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.140.0/24 7714 PlaNet Trust 202.49.141.0/24 4763 Kapiti Internet Services 202.49.143.0/24 4648 The National Bank. 202.49.144.0/24 4648 Glazier Systems Limited 202.49.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.151.0/24 4648 Avonside Girls High School 202.49.152.0/21 4648 Internet Access Service Provider 202.49.16.0/20 4768 Nelson Polytechnic 202.49.164.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.165.0/24 4763 PlaNet Hamilton 202.49.166.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.167.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.168.0/24 4648 EnterNet Online Limited 202.49.170.0/24 4648 Arron Scott Developments 202.49.172.0/22 4648 TV3 Network Services 202.49.176.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.177.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.178.0/24 4768 Wave internet services 202.49.179.0/24 4740 ARAC Enterprises Limited 202.49.180.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.180.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.192/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.183.0/24 4648 Brice Parker Consultants 202.49.184.0/24 4648 Applied Computers Ltd 202.49.185.0/24 4648 John Houlker Internet 202.49.186.0/24 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.186.0/28 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.187.0/24 4768 Earthlight Communications Ltd 202.49.189.0/24 4763 Pakuranga College 202.49.190.0/24 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.49.193.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.194.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.197.0/24 7714 Computer Systems Implementation Limited 202.49.198.0/23 4648 Wanganui Polytechnic - Internet 202.49.206.0/24 7714 The Laptop Shop Ltd 202.49.208.0/21 7714 Additional Class-C nets to support expansion of 202.49.224.0/22 4768 Serious Information Services 202.49.230.0/24 4768 Reed Publishing 202.49.233.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.240.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.241.0/24 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.241.64/26 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.242.0/24 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.244.0/22 4648 The Internet Group in Northland 202.49.249.0/24 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.250.0/24 4648 Maximum Warp 202.49.251.0/24 4648 Stretton & Co. Limited 202.49.252.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.253.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.192/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.33.0/24 4768 Computer Systems Engineering (NZ) Ltd 202.49.34.0/23 4648 Hamilton City Council 202.49.36.0/24 4768 Waikato Development Foundation 202.49.39.0/24 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.49.41.0/24 4648 Rural Education Activities Program 202.49.46.0/23 4768 Computer Systems Engineering (NZ) Ltd 202.49.48.0/24 4768 Rotorua District Council 202.49.50.0/24 7714 Matamata Piako District Council 202.49.58.0/24 4648 Kristin School 202.49.62.0/24 4763 Clearfield Consulting Ltd 202.49.63.0/24 4768 Wave internet services 202.49.64.0/21 4648 Plain Communications Ltd 202.49.72.0/22 7714 Teltrend NZ Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand. 202.49.78.0/24 4648 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited 202.49.79.0/24 4648 Doughty Group 202.49.80.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.81.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.82.0/24 4805 Massey University, Information Technology Services 202.49.84.0/24 7714 Hardcastle Electronics Ltd 202.49.86.0/24 4768 Ergo Finacial Services 202.49.88.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.112/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.12/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.124/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.132/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.156/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.224/27 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.32/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.33/32 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.36/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.8/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.90.0/23 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.92.0/22 4648 Nelson Planet Trust 202.49.96.0/21 4648 Bank Of New Zealand 202.50.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.0.0/23 4648 NZI Insurance Ltd 202.50.102.0/24 7714 ANSO Systems Ltd 202.50.103.0/24 4648 Random 202.50.104.0/22 4648 Tasman District Council 202.50.108.0/24 4763 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.50.111.0/24 4763 CA-Systems Limited 202.50.112.0/24 4768 Gough Technology Group 202.50.114.0/24 4763 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.50.117.0/24 4768 Skope Industries Ltd 202.50.121.0/24 4648 Stimulus (NZ) Ltd. 202.50.124.0/22 4648 PlaNet (NZ) Nelson 202.50.129.0/24 4648 Ministry of Defence 202.50.130.0/23 4768 Wattie Frozen Foods 202.50.137.0/24 7714 Chelmer Treasury Solutions Ltd. 202.50.139.0/24 7714 Datastor (NZ) Ltd. 202.50.162.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.164.0/24 4763 Magicians BBS Network 202.50.165.0/24 4648 Accident Rehabilitation Compensation and Insurance Corporation 202.50.167.0/24 4648 THENETTD 202.50.169.0/24 4648 Eastern Southland Internet 202.50.170.0/24 4648 Business Internet Solutions 202.50.171.0/24 4648 Inet Co Ltd 202.50.177.0/24 4768 Quantum Internet Limited 202.50.178.0/23 4768 Planet(NZ) Timaru 202.50.185.0/24 2687 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.186.0/24 2687 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.188.0/22 4768 Wave internet services 202.50.196.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.197.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.198.0/24 4648 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 202.50.199.0/24 4648 Landcare Research Limited 202.50.200.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.201.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.202.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.203.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.204.0/24 4648 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 202.50.205.0/24 4648 Landcare Research Limited 202.50.206.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.207.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.208.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.209.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.210.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.211.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.212.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.213.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.214.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.215.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.219.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.220.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.221.0/24 4648 Dynix Automated Library Systems 202.50.222.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.223.0/24 4648 Raewyn & Trudy's System including 202.50.244.0/24 4648 Power Beat International Limited 202.50.246.0/24 4648 ems.co.nz 202.50.252.0/24 7714 Eastern Institute of Technology Hawke's Bay 202.50.253.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.254.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.255.0/24 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.0/28 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.128/25 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.32/27 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.49.0/24 4648 Swichtec Power Systems Limited 202.50.52.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.53.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.54.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.55.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.57.0/24 4648 Coal Research Limited 202.50.6.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.64.0/21 4648 PlaNet (Manawatu) Community Company Ltd 202.50.72.0/24 4648 Gateway Polynesia 202.50.73.0/24 4648 Brierley Investments Limited 202.50.75.0/24 4648 Netway ZM Service 202.50.78.0/23 4648 Southpower 202.50.80.0/22 4648 Telecom Internet Services (previously Online Services) 202.50.84.0/24 4648 Publish Media New Zealand 202.50.85.0/24 4648 Moore Business Forms and Systems Limited 202.50.87.0/24 4648 Circle International 202.50.9.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.90.0/24 4648 Southland Polytechnic 202.50.92.0/24 4648 RealENZ Limited 202.50.94.0/24 4648 SUNSHINE Online 202.50.95.0/24 4763 Creative cGi Ltd 203.96.0.0/20 6831 Pronet Limited 203.96.112.0/24 4648 Deep South Networks Ltd 203.96.117.0/24 4648 Owens Services B.O.P. Ltd 203.96.118.0/24 4648 CADS (Auckland) Ltd 203.96.119.0/24 4648 World-Net Limited 203.96.120.0/23 4768 The National Business Review 203.96.120.0/24 4768 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.123.0/24 4648 ComNet Technologies Limited 203.96.125.0/24 4648 Dilworth School. 203.96.126.0/24 4648 WorldNet ISP 203.96.128.0/19 4768 Globe.Net Comms, 203.96.130.0/24 4768 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.144.0/20 9345 Paradise Net Ltd, 203.96.16.0/20 9343 Pronet Limited 203.96.192.0/19 4768 wave internet services 203.96.32.0/21 6831 Pronet Limited 203.96.40.0/21 9325 Pronet Limited 203.96.48.0/20 9343 Pronet Limited 203.96.64.0/19 4648 Netway Communications Limited 203.96.92.0/22 4648 Telecom Online Service 203.96.96.0/19 4648 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.96.0/20 4648 Telecom Online Service 203.97.0.0/17 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.0.0/22 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.10.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.11.0/26 4768 Face 203.97.11.144/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.148/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.152/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.156/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.160/29 4768 Face 203.97.11.168/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.172/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.192/26 4768 Face 203.97.12.0/23 4768 Air New Zealand 203.97.128.0/17 7714 Netlink 203.97.133.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.135.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.136.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.139.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.14.0/24 4768 Bell Gully Buddle Weir 203.97.143.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.147.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.15.0/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.128/26 4768 ESR 203.97.15.32/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.64/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.96/27 4768 ESR 203.97.151.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.154.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.16.0/22 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.163.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.164.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.165.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.182.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.191.241/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.192.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.199.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.20.0/23 4768 Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind 203.97.200.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.203.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.207.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.210.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.215.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.216.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.218.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.22.0/24 4768 Pacific Networks 203.97.222.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.223.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.227.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.23.0/24 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.128/29 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.136/29 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.144/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.160/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.176/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.192/27 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.224/27 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.230.0/24 4768 NetLink: RNZFB Hamilton 203.97.235.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.24.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.240.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.242.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.25.0/24 4768 Advantage International 203.97.250.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.250.0/24 4768 Clearview Communications 203.97.250.0/24 7714 Clearview Communications 203.97.26.0/24 4768 Guardian Assurance 203.97.27.0/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.128/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.160/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.176/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.192/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.224/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.32/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.64/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.96/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.28.0/22 9325 SineSurf 203.97.32.0/21 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.4.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.40.0/24 4768 Contact Energy 203.97.41.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.42.0/24 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.43.0/25 4768 Frontier Technology 203.97.43.144/29 4768 Frontier Technology 203.97.44.0/24 4768 TITAN 203.97.45.0/24 4768 Wellman 203.97.46.0/24 4768 Webmasters 203.97.47.0/24 4768 Tech Tonics 203.97.48.0/21 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.5.0/24 4768 Computer Science Applied Research Centre 203.97.56.0/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.112/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.128/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.144/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.160/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.176/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.192/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.208/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.24/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.240/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.32/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.40/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.48/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.64/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.80/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.96/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.57.0/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.112/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.128/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.136/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.144/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.16/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.160/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.176/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.192/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.224/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.240/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.32/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.40/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.48/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.64/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.80/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.96/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.58.0/24 4768 Citylink Peering 203.97.58.8/29 4768 Citylink Peering 203.97.59.0/24 4768 LINZ 203.97.6.0/23 4768 New Zealand Online Ltd 203.97.60.0/23 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.62.0/25 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.128/27 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.160/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.176/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.192/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.208/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.224/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.240/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.63.0/24 4768 FRST 203.97.64.0/20 4768 Taranaki Polytechnic 203.97.8.0/23 4768 Earthlight Communications Ltd 203.97.80.0/22 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.80.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.81.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.82.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.83.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.84.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.85.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.86.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.87.0/24 4768 Bay City 203.97.88.0/24 4768 Renaissance Ltd 203.97.89.0/24 4768 Philips Fox 203.97.90.0/24 4768 Philips Fox 203.97.91.0/24 4768 Harding Computer Services 203.97.92.0/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.144/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.16/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.160/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.176/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.192/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.208/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.224/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.240/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.32/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.48/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.8/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.96/27 4768 Securitas 203.97.93.0/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.104/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.112/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.120/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.128/25 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.16/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.32/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.48/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.64/26 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.64/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.8/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.96/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.94.128/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.144/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.160/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.168/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.176/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.192/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.208/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.224/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.240/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.32/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.64/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.96/27 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.95.0/24 4768 AEP Filmpac 203.97.96.0/19 4768 Auckland Internet Exchange ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Michael Newbery 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>>>> Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> - 10/14/98 6:24 PM >>> >On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 05:42:38PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >> >> Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they >> can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being >> unreasonable here? > >They will, actually, as long as your new connection is off the same >exchange. Funnily enough, this is a matter that Saturn is very aware of :-|. Yes, they do, and yes, they are. At least, within the same local area. Just to be awkward, consider a cell phone number. The cell networks are set up to divorce indentity from locality. Landline telephone networks are less well set up, but still capable. In fact the situation is much as for IP---the exchanges have to maintain lookup tables that say "send *this* number *there*", rather than using rule based routing. Where IP and the telephone system differ is that this cost is incurred only at call setup (which is why TCNZ's current policy is iniquitous) whereas IP routes individual packets. But that's what caches are for. Back to the subject at hand. Back when we set up the VUW network, we had about 12 (from memory) machines set up using an invalid IP network 'plucked from the air'. This was before the private address ranges. When we got our class B (where we argued that although we did not have more than 254 machines, we would some day. Try that now :-). I recall the pain in moving. For only 12 machines. When I got here I found (invalid) IP addresses hard coded in all sorts of unfortunate places. Most had been set up by 3rd party equipment suppliers. Some were due to lazy (and IP-unaware) programmers. The point I am making is: Do NOT underestimate the pain caused by IP renumbering. Now that everyone and his dog is using IP, all sorts of pieces of equipment you might not expect have addresses buried deep with in them, and 18 mo down the track this fact is unknown to the current keepers of the key. -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-915 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Hi Robert, Thanks for the excellent perspective on this issue. I'll only make a few comments. > 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one > set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain > provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing > operators enjoy. For entrants who expect to need a reasonable amount of address space, there is little difference. The situation for those needing less is, unfortunately, difficult because small blocks of newly obtained addresses are unlikely to be routable. However, new entrants may be able to use NATs or otherwise build their systems to allow easy renumbering. The main problem for existing users is that changing can be difficult, expensive, and not commercially viable because few had anticipated a need to ever have to renumber (and the systems to make this easy were not available then). > 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses This is an excellent idea. Perhaps all the incentives are already there (improved security, portability, future proofing, shorter outages from route flapping, etc). Perhaps we put together a readable document on the subject and distribute it widely. Providing incentives is certainly a much better approach than trying to coerce people into migrating -- and maybe we could get corporates to migrate without moving (resulting in more migration). > One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet > Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what > I thought NZGATE was). I think lots of others did too, including APNIC. -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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > Who do you propose will pay the end users for the pain and real costs > involved? The ISPs have the easy part of this renumbering. I don't see > people renumbering because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it > because they have to e.g. when they move ISP. But if they have a /24 they don't have to. What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs. It's a great way to lock up your clients. There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move (just as there is no strong reason to make everyone move for the sake of moving). Getting everyone to migrate seems to be a goal, but yet by making users renumber only when they move, you will slow movement and thus migration. Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas. The balance of convenience would favor the end user and not the provider (who will suffer zero or no loss or convenience as a result of the end user not renumbering). In the case of an ISP, web hosting company, or business which depends on the Internet (and that's a good percentage of them now), not changing providers may not be a viable option. By opening the door with an N month grace period you are only showing everyone that it's technically possible but that you don't want to do it for commercial reasons. Restrictions on portability have never been _introduced_ anywhere else for _historical_ IP addresses. Half the root name servers are running on /24s -- every wonder why that is? I see no real benefit here -- we will still have ISPs moving these addresses around for years to come (the proposal rightly allows for that) -- what reason makes routes for ISPs look any different than routes for end users? How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)? -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 4

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Robert Gray 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Clearly this subject has provoked some very considered discussion on the subject of address portability. For those interested RIPE-127 (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html) provides a useful and lucid dissertation on the subject and offers a number of sensible recommendations. To selectively quote "All early Internet address space assignments were provider independent. Many assignments made by ISPs are also formally provider independent because they lack the clear prior understanding between ISP and customer that the assignment will end with the termination of the service." On the historical side regarding NZGATE I personally believe this is the key issue, i.e. unless you were told the space was not portable then it is. This however begs the question of how best to organise for the future. We are not an ISP in the accepted sense as we do not offer connectivity except as part of an overall package. We are however a significant user of IP addresses for web and mail servers. Joe's possible solution and the discussion so far causes us some concern. Having recently been through the process of re-numbering and implementing NAT it proved a major undertaking and one I would hesitate to repeat. We made a number of errors resulting in outages for our clients and irritation to our suppliers and I am at a loss to see how these could have been avoided. Hopefully with NAT now in place we would make it a little easier however the number and scope of DNS changes, firewall changes, authentication changes and the fact that these must occur in one 'hit' makes it commercially pretty unacceptable. With today's firewalls/proxy servers there should be no issue for even large corporates to renumber over time, given incentive to do so. IPv6 should give this if no other reason. Smaller providers however are faced with significant problems in re-numbering which although they may seem small time are in fact relatively expensive and difficult for such an operator to overcome. We now have an example where one of our clients has been enticed by the offer of a /24 by another ISP with NZGATE addresses to burn, something we are unable to provide. I have to say that I consider this sort of behaviour seriously unethical. For me, key elements of a solution are: 1. Access providers should not be able to hold downstream operators to ransom by withholding IP addresses and forcing such users to renumber if they move. 2. The solution should offer all existing ISP players long term access to the provider independent IP addresses they need to do business. In other words a level playing field. 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing operators enjoy. 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what I thought NZGATE was). To quote again "Local IRs are typically operated by ISPs and serve the customers of those ISPs as well as the customers of smaller ISPs who are connected to the rest of the Internet through the larger ISP." Seems to me that a Local IR might be really useful. If I can contribute a beer sounds like an excellent scheme. 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

NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy
by Donald Neal 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

NZNOG Subscribers, Below is the Acceptable Use Policy of the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list. I suspect in may be about time this list acquired such a policy, though possibly without quite so many dire warnings. It is indeed true that this list is not a cartel of any kind, and IP renumbering is clearly relevant, but it may be a good idea to have some sort of policy in place before it is needed rather than afterwards. In the absence of any feedback to this posting I intend to suggest to list subscribers the adoption of a policy bearing some resemblance to what appears below. Donald Neal NZNOG list owner/administrator/muggins ---------- Charter The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: Acceptable Use Policy 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's messages to the list. If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic. --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Its not a problem for the University as such but those distals buying traffic from us who currently have NZgate address blocks. As yes we make very good use of our class B address. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 15:17 To: Warwick GLENDENNING Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Warwick GLENDENNING wrote: > > I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate > to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. > > Regards > Warwick > Surely the University of Waikato has it's own /16 prefix from the "good old days" (tm) and as such won't be affected by the above problems. If they have space over and above that then they should be encouraged to get dispose of that ASAP. -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > I have prepared a VERY DRAFT paper in an attempt to clarify the situation > regarding IP addresses delegated historically by NZGATE, and to describe > one possible approach for bringing the current situation into line with > current policies of provider-based addressing. I must say i'm slightly confused about the rationale here. Has Telecom issued a "renumber or move to us decree"? Or is it just that they are advertising the NZGATE CIDR blocks? If they are pushing "renumber or move to us" then we should seek a legal opinion on the matter. I sincerely doubt that where a class C was issued to an NZ company with the understanding that they could move providers (and many were as this was accepted practice in 1994), that Telecom could claim any right of use whatsoever. >From the client's point of view, the restrictions suggested on the use of NZGATE addresses are not a good thing. Many of these addresses were assigned before provider based addressing was in vogue, and it's seems strange now that we should attempt to impose these restrictions and force renumbering (on moves) on networks which may wish to use NZGATE addresses in the provider independent fashion in which they were issued (a fair percentage of NZ companies connected to the Internet in NZ in 1995 had their own class C for the sole purpose that could take it with them). It is not a myth that rights or ownership _of_use_ of a Class C issued via Waikato in 1994 belongs to the company to whom it was issued. This was standard practice at the time. I'm not aware of US or European IP addresses that were, subsequent to the introduction of provider based addressing, forcibly aggregated under a single provider, nor had the conditions on which routing would be allowed revoked. The current practice of portability of NZGATE addresses is fair and fits with international practice. Any attempt by Telecom or a consortium of ISPs to limit portability is not a good thing, even if current practice now is for IP addresses to be most often issued in a non-portable fashion. To sumarise: 1) provider based addressing was not widely practiced in 1994. 2) companies obtained class C's from Waikato in that and subsequent years with the understanding that they were portable. 3) there were no distinctions between which addresses were in provider blocks and which weren't in those early years. 4) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to assume that all the old IP addresses belong to a particular provider. 5) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to impose any new limitations on IP addresses obtained earlier. Such addresses may easily require the same portability as is now required of provider blocks. 6) Neither Telecom's (alleged) ideas nor the draft's suggestions fit accepted international practice for historically assigned IP addresses. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

6 10

RE: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 14:54 To: Joe Abley Cc: Craig Anderson; jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Joe Abley wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote: > > > > There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability > > aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks > > like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. > > And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will > > be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would > > have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to > > look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or > > behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems. > > Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think ;) > > There are both technical and commercial reasons for wanting to tie the > issue down, and I mentioned both in the "issues" section in my original > message. > > > I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that > > are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. > > How about we use: > > > > You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was > > allocated to you (or else you renumber). > > > > This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also > > be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. > > This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent > > overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership". > > We will need APNIC buy-in, and I agree with Chris that a migration period > can be helpful, as long as it is enforced (i.e. enforcable). I agree on a migration period as well but I think 6 months is much too long. Consider the scenario where several /22 networks change to use another provider over the 6 month period. This could result in large amounts of space being unavailable. I doubt whether APNIC would be well disposed to issue more space in this case. I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale. I also believe that the 'receiving' ISP needs to make it clear to their new customer that this time scale must be adhered to. Presumably we can all agree that once we get people working from provider based blocks then the playing field is level and that renumbering is no longer such a barrier to migration. Customers need to understand that one of the costs involved in moving will be renumbering. I've currently got these networks: 203.97.128.0/17 202.37.0.0/20 202.27.40.0/21 202.49.208.0/21 202.27.64.0/22 202.27.92.0/22 202.27.104.0/22 202.36.164.0/22 202.36.192.0/22 202.37.60.0/22 202.49.72.0/22 202.27.70.0/23 202.27.78.0/23 202.27.82.0/23 202.36.32.0/23 202.36.44.0/23 202.36.162.0/23 202.36.244.0/23 202.37.32.0/23 202.37.56.0/23 202.37.72.0/23 202.27.34.0/24 202.27.68.0/24 202.27.88.0/24 202.27.100.0/24 202.27.128.0/24 202.36.29.0/24 202.36.34.0/24 202.36.46.0/24 202.36.60.0/24 202.36.70.0/24 202.36.72.0/24 202.36.76.0/24 202.36.80.0/24 202.36.114.0/24 202.36.137.0/24 202.36.141.0/24 202.36.154.0/24 202.36.157.0/24 202.36.171.0/24 202.36.173.0/24 202.36.196.0/24 202.36.198.0/24 202.36.224.0/24 202.36.229.0/24 202.36.235.0/24 202.36.239.0/24 202.36.240.0/24 202.36.251.0/24 202.36.252.0/24 202.37.23.0/24 202.37.27.0/24 202.37.52.0/24 202.37.54.0/24 202.37.78.0/24 202.37.85.0/24 202.37.112.0/24 202.37.114.0/24 202.37.166.0/24 202.37.173.0/24 202.37.235.0/24 202.49.50.0/24 202.49.84.0/24 202.49.86.0/24 202.49.140.0/24 202.49.193.0/24 202.49.194.0/24 202.49.197.0/24 202.49.206.0/24 202.50.102.0/24 202.50.137.0/24 202.50.139.0/24 202.50.164.0/24 202.50.252.0/24 --------- 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

2 1

Re: NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy -Reply
by Donald Neal 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Jamie, Discussion of beer in general terms is philosophical. Discussion of specific applications of beer is operational. And the more network service providers the beer is to be applied to, the more operational it is. :{)* - Donald >>> Jamie Clark <jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz> 14/October/1998 04:25pm >>> Hmmm... On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Donald Neal wrote: > Acceptable Use Policy > > 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as > described in the charter of NANOG. > 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. > 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. > 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack > of respect for other participants are prohibited. > 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. > 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Is Beer an operational issue or is it of philosphical nature? Technically speaking, of course. -Jamie --------- 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

Beer
by Joe Abley 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

So are we going for beer on Friday or not? To avoid any confusion this is directed at people in Auckland. Readers elsewhere (including those who have absconded to the Dark Side of the Tasman and have Sold Their Souls to vendors) can make their own arrangements :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 11 Oct '98

11 Oct '98

Hi. > Craig, all of the recent (post 1996) RFCs and IETF drafts that I have seen > make it clear that address portability is inconsistent with having a > routable Internet. The regional registries all have policies to > reduce route table fragmentation by migrating organisations to provider > addressing. I'm suggesting we attempt to address historical address portability where it was rightfully assumed and that we do not attempt to force migration. Also clarification of the "ownership" of the NZGATE addresses would seem to be in order as there seems to be some dispute and confusion there. > I think Joe pretty much assumed that ISPs were aware of the potential > problems with portability. If any of the major upstream providers of the > New Zealand providers begin to filter small advertisements (say, smaller > than /20) then a lot of NZ organisations with "portable" addresses > could potentially be cut off from the rest of the world. This is pretty unlikely. It would cut off major and important sections of the Internet, including most root name servers. Sprint unilaterally began filtering longer prefix routes several years ago but not those in ranges in use prior to widespread discussion of provider blocks (i.e. they have never filtered out NZGATE prefixes shorter than or equal to /24). Also, routing table growth has slowed because of the introduction of CIDR, the use of provider based addressing, and (proxy) aggregation. Routing table growth for the past three years (~1.7x) has been much slower than router CPU and memory growth and this trend is likely to continue. With it becoming increasingly easier to handle all routes, such action is now unlikely for technical reasons. The dampening used by some providers does tend to cause /24's to incur longer blocking than a /20 would as a result of flapping. But beyond this it's hard to see any potential problems with the portability of the NZGATE addresses (and many are in blocks larger than a /24 anyway). > You can be sure that many of these small routes are not carried globally > and only have connectivity because the origin of the supernet routes gets > the traffic close enough to a provider that doesn't filter. For NZGATE addresses, i do not believe this is factual. In addition to my general moaning, the draft specifically penalises many older ISPs (by making the addresses of their servers non-portable) does not address multi-homed use, and does not provide exceptions where portability is reasonable. How about policies based more roughly around these ideas: Those who obtained addresses directly from Waikato with the legitimate understanding they were portable should be treated as portable (/23 or shorter automatically qualifies). Addresses obtained from an ISP are not portable and should not be advertised by another ISP (except by agreement). No provider is allowed to advertise supernets that overlap another providers advertisements (except by agreement). -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 7

NZGATE addressing within NZ -Reply
by Donald Neal 08 Oct '98

08 Oct '98

Problems in getting small allocations advertised have been foreseen for years. Are we actually at the stage where we're seeing international carriers refuse to advertise anything, say, below a /18? - Donald Neal --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Joe Abley 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi all, I have prepared a VERY DRAFT paper in an attempt to clarify the situation regarding IP addresses delegated historically by NZGATE, and to describe one possible approach for bringing the current situation into line with current policies of provider-based addressing. This is only one possible solution. This document is DRAFT. This document does not attempt to define policy; it is merely intended to provoke some useful discussion. >From some informal conversations on the subject it would seem that there is a widespread interest in eliminating the ambiguity that has existed on this topic, and in agreeing a strategy to allow a transition to provider- based addressing to proceed as rapidly as is practical. Please distribute this document as widely as you care to. Comments, criticism, flames and threats back to the list please, so everybody can enjoy them :) Thanks to Andy Linton and John Houlker for useful feedback and comments on earlier, even more primitive drafts. Note that any factual errors or ommisions on this history of the NZ internet are mine. The spelling mistakes are all Andy's fault, however :) Copies are available at http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IP Addresses delegated from "NZGATE" in use within New Zealand 1. The problem 1.1. Overview RFC2050 documents the best current practice for address delegation for the global Internet. It imposes a framework of restrictions driven by a growing scarcity of globally-unique IP addresses and a need to summarise or aggregate routing advertisements globally to keep the Internet running reliably. The history of the Internet in New Zealand includes, at an early stage, a single domestic provider known as "NZGATE". This provider was facilitated by the University of Waikato, with international connectivity to NASA. Initially, NZGATE provided the sum total of international Internet connectivity for New Zealand. The regional authority for IP address allocation, APNIC, delegated a number of address ranges to NZGATE [3.1]. Early entrants to the Internet community in New Zealand, obtaining transit through NZGATE, were delegated address space out of these blocks according to the guidelines set down by APNIC and, indirectly, IANA. NZGATE faded out of existance in 1996 [3.2]. Since that time additional providers have added global internet transit using dedicated international circuits to their portfolio of products, including (in no particular order) Netway, IBM, CLEAR, IHUG, Telstra NZ and Voyager. Most of these participants have obtained address delegations directly from an appropriate regional registry, as they are diversely connected and don't favour a single provider for "default routing". Newly-connected customers of these transit providers (be they end users or resellers, i.e. ISPs) have been delegated address space by their providers, from the blocks delegated to those providers from APNIC, according to RFC2050. If these customers change providers, they are obliged to return the address delegations to their old provider, and obtain corresponding new ranges from their new provider. 1.2. Issues 1.2.1. Stability and RFC2050 It is extremely important from a technical standpoint that provider-based aggregation and delegation is adhered to for all customers who do not meet the criteria for operating under addresses delegated directly from APNIC. 1.2.2. Impact on end-users Renumbering can be an expensive exercise for some end users, especially those whose networks have evolved for some years. In the early days of the Internet in New Zealand, provider-based addressing was not part of the network design. Provider-based addressing first came under discussion as a solution to problems of scale, and only gradually moved from being a radical departure from good practice to an accepted reality. The evolutionary nature of this change was good in the sense that the impact could be somewhat tuned to the timeline of the allocations and expectations, but was bad in the sense that the moving situation added to the complexity and uncertainty. Many established end-user networks were built without the expectation that the IP addresses delegated to them were tied to a particular provider. Now that provider-based addressing is widely recognised as best current practice and is required by the regional registries, the requirement to renumber upon changing provider is still widely misunderstood. It is worth noting that there was no way that NZGATE (or any other ISP at the time) could solve all the issues of address portability raised by the addressing policy changes sweeping across the internet. Many NZGATE-numbered end-users may already have changed providers without renumbering, reinforcing the unfortunate myth that the NZGATE addresses they are using are still inherently portable, and "owned" by them. Although some providers now include clauses in their customer contracts underlining the point that addresses delegated as part of service delivery must be returned at the end of the contract, this is by no means universal, and the myth of "customer-owned IP addresses" lives on. It is imperative going forward that the concept of provider-based addressing and the non-portability of most network numbers is widely publicised amongst end-users. 1.2.3. Impact on national providers For ISPs that obtain global transit through other providers, and who have not arranged address delegations directly from APNIC, renumbering may be just as onerous as for end-users. Additionally national providers may supply end-users for whom renumbering is expensive, and the associated inconvenience mentioned in [1.2.2] is cumulative. 1.2.4. Competitive advantage There has been a misconception within the NZ Internet community that Netway communications (and, latterly, NetGate/Telecom NZ) assumed the NZGATE role by providing connectivity to the Waikato network in early 1996, and by virtue of this fact the addresses delegated by APNIC to NZGATE are now, by proxy, effectively delegated to Telecom NZ. This does not appear to be a view held by others involved in the "transition" [3.2]. More accurately, for a time Netway was the sole provider to NZGATE, and hence also to all downstream networks of NZGATE. This situation soon changed, with other providers bringing international transit to NZGATE subscribers, and NZGATE slowly faded out of existance leaving end-user networks direct customers of the new international providers. It is not at all obvious that any single provider can lay legitimate claim to operational responsibility of the NZGATE blocks. The effective use of these addresses as "portable" between providers over the past few years is not compatible with a delegation model whereby it is acceptable for NetGate customer networks to use them, but not acceptable for a customer of another provider. In effect, an expectation has been raised by Telecom NZ that customers who have been happily numbered under NZGATE addresses (and have used a variety of ISPs for some time) are now faced with a choice of (a) renumber, or (b) change providers to NetGate/Xtra. Due to the operational cost of renumbering, this gives Telecom NZ competitive advantages over other ISPs based on the contentious belief that Telecom has assumed operational responsibility for the NZGATE address blocks. Many address ranges delegated from the NZGATE blocks, although well documented at the time, have since been unofficially "transferred" to other operators, or are not currently in use. Hence documentation of the current state of NZGATE delegations is out-of-date. The operational responsibility for the NZGATE address blocks, when coupled with a lack of documentation for past delegations is, in fact, a hindrance to Telecom NZ, as it makes strict compliance with APNIC policy for the delegation of additional address blocks far more difficult. 1.3. Unified approach It is in the interests of all providers within NZ that a solution to the problems outlined in this document be found. It is also important that no single provider is seen to be responsible for what may be seen by end-users as restrictions, or inconvenient changes of policy. By taking a unified approach to the problem with a policy document agreed by the majority of New Zealand providers, the risk of confusion is minimised and the chances of productive user education are increased. It is proposed that the unified policy be agreed as an operational exercise within the provider community, by the usual open discussion within the NZNOG forum. 2. One possible solution 2.1. Overview The proposed solution attempts to minimise the risks discussed in [1.2], whilst providing a clear migration path towards full provider-based addressing within New Zealand. 2.2. Rationalisation of historical NZGATE delegations A list should be generated (and published) documenting subnets of the NZGATE blocks [3.1] which are in use at some agreed time. All blocks being so-used should be documented. If the sections of the NZGATE blocks in use by Telecom/NetGate/Xtra infrastructure (and not by end-users of Telecom/NetGate/Xtra) are conveniently contiguous, it will make sense to re-designate those blocks as delegated to Telecom rather than "NZGATE". On the other hand, if it transpires that the NZGATE blocks are overly fragmented to make this impractical, Telecom should approach APNIC for a further, distinct address delegation. 2.3. Administrative control of NZGATE blocks returned to APNIC All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be returned to APNIC for administration. No further delegations from the NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider. To enforce this, providers in NZ may apply route filters to prevent the use of non-approved NZGATE address ranges. 2.4. Forced renumbering No end-user network using NZGATE subnets should be obliged to renumber as part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]). 2.5. Process for extending address space delegations Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing in order to obtain their larger address range. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the ISP. 2.6. Process for managing ISP-hopping by end-user networks Any end-user network that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change ISPs must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the former ISP. 2.7. Process for managing ISP-hopping by national providers Any national provider that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change global transit providers must renumber its own infrastructure using provider-based addressing provided by the new global transit provider. Customers of the national provider who use NZGATE numbers will not be required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). 3. References 3.1. Netblocks delegated historically to NZGATE-NZ The addresses concerned have all been delegated from within the NZGATE-NZ networks as recorded at APNIC, which are described as: netname: NZGATE-NZ descr: NZ Gate National Service Provider descr: Component of University Of Waikato descr: New Zeland The netblocks currently assigned to NZGATE-NZ are: inetnum: 202.27.0.0 - 202.27.255.255 inetnum: 202.49.0.0 - 202.49.255.255 inetnum: 202.50.0.0 - 202.50.255.255 inetnum: 202.36.0.0 - 202.37.255.255 inetnum: 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 The netblock 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 is perhaps erroneously attributed to NZGATE-NZ here - in fact, this block was delegated to an APNIC confederate member, NZNIC, operated by the University of Waikato. NZNIC no longer operates [3.2]. 3.2. Transition of NZGATE services to other providers The following message outlines the events surrounding the transition of international internet transit from NZGATE to other providers in early 1996, as recalled by John Houlker of Waikato University (quoted with permission). From: John Houlker <john(a)waikato.ac.nz> To: ccc_rex(a)waikato.ac.nz, "'Joe Abley'" <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: asjl(a)netlink.co.nz, Jamie Clark <jclark(a)clear.co.nz>, Roger Hicks <rhicks(a)clear.co.nz> Subject: RE: [jabley(a)clear.co.nz: NZGATE-NZ] Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:38:45 +1200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Joe > I would be very interested to hear your views on my original e-mail, which > is attached; in particular relating to Brett Telfer's comment, quoted in > the Herald: > > "Netgate service specialist Brett Telfer says most of the Waikato > University provided IP addresses passed to the Telecom subsidiary when > it took over the running of NZ Gate in late 1995." > > It was my understanding that NZ Gate had ceased to exist in its former > role, rather than being subsumed into Telecom? Telecom (i.e., Netway) did not "take over" NZGate, but nor did NZGate instantly "cease to exist" (such a step was simply not possible). Netway did become NZGate's supplier for a significant period while NZGate gradually reduced out of existence (I believe this started in January 1996). At the time NZGate shut down its international links this was phased with the introduction of commercial providers offering international capacity at the NZIX, but it was a complex transition with Telecom and Clear only slowly coming to grips with international IP services, and NZGate clients only slowly working out what they should do. The NZGate international circuit contracts came up to expiry in January 1996 (and we were in no position to renew for a further 12 months) and the NASA "PACCOM" access was supposed to cease in February 1996 (in the event it didn't, but we could not count on further access to the NASA FIX-WEST gateway beyond that date). We were not in a position, however, to disperse all the NZGate customers to direct supply from the newly establishing commercial suppliers (Clear made a late start with limited bandwidth, pricing was still under negotiation, all this was proving harder for the new entrants than they expected). Indeed we were asked to keep NZGate going to give our clients more time to sort out alternatives. As a result NZGate continued as a reseller, i.e., an intermediate IP provider, and we bought our international supply from Netway (our only option at the time). The University network "Kawaihiko" ceased being a customer of "NZGate" and moved to buy directly (also from Netway). As you know, somewhat later Kawaihiko took the considerably more complicated step of "multi-homing", buying from Netway and Clear in parallel (and later again, also from Telstra). In this way Netway "inherited" the NZGate address blocks as they were at that time - since they became suppliers to the remains of NZGate, and Kawaihiko (and they later picked up the then "CRINET" and AgNet as well). I would be interested in your comments, I haven't seen the Herald article, but it does sound like there are sites that don't yet know the implications of moving provider. In terms of the old blocks of former NZGate addresses it could indeed be most useful to get special treatment from the APNIC to allow greater flexibility in on-going devolution of the original NZGate group. As things stand Telecom have no option but to comply with APNIC requirements on efficient use of address space (this does not apply to the "NZNIC confederation" space that Waikato allocated to ISPs - in an attempt to assist portability - i.e., 203.96.0.0/15, which is entirely independent. Whether or not the APNIC would agree to a special approach here, it seems there may be existing customers of Telecom (or of ISPs using Telecom) who aren't yet aware of the portability issues. If not, perhaps some publicity drive out of Telecom and/or perhaps NZNOG contacts could spread the word. I asked Jim Higgens if ISOCNZ has good contacts to spread information to ISPs but I gather that (especially given the demise of ISPANZ) NZNOG may be the best shot. John 4. Contributors Joe Abley, CLEAR Communications Ltd <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> John Houlker, Waikato University <j.houlker(a)waikato.ac.nz> Andy Linton, NetLink Communications Ltd <asjl(a)netlink.co.nz> 5. Document History $Log: nznumber.txt,v $ Revision 1.4 1998/10/08 09:23:46 jabley Some further clarification Revision 1.3 1998/10/08 09:01:42 jabley Modifications following comments from jhoulker Revision 1.2 1998/10/08 00:22:36 jabley minor typo corrected as pointed out by wellingtonian pedant Revision 1.1 1998/10/07 13:01:32 jabley Initial revision --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Route servers on Citylink (WIX)
by Simon Blake 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi Folks For the last couple of months I've had a linux box running the MRT route daemon as an experimental BGP route server, with links between a few organisations on Citylink who were happy to participate in a trial. The main aim of the experiment was to consider ways that Citylink connected organisations with BGP capable routers but without AS numbers might exchange routing data, so that they can send data directly between each other, without having to go through one (or several) ISP routers. As a rudimentary route server, MRT seems to work really well (it lacks some of the RIPE tools of the Merit RA, but on the other hand, it compiles under Linux :-). We ended up setting up MRT to peer with the organisations who had AS numbers, and then setup all the other routers in AS number 65502 (chosen at random) as static routes within MRT, and redistributed them into BGP. Turn off synchronisation on the routers in AS65502, and everything seemed to work as advertised (this is speaking from memory, I haven't looked at it for about 6 weeks). Citylink is now at the stage where we've got customers pestering us to incorporate them into the system, and a management itchy keen to take some money off of these people. So I guess what I'm after from the list is some opinions on whether this is a good idea, and I'm on the right track. Obviously, for this to be more than a toy I need the ISP's on Citylink to participate in such an exchange, so recommendations on making it easier for them to be involved are welcome. Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 5

Re: Route servers on Citylink (WIX)
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi. > The main aim of the experiment was to consider ways that Citylink > connected organisations with BGP capable routers but without AS numbers > might exchange routing data, so that they can send data directly between > each other, without having to go through one (or several) ISP routers. Don't ICMP redirects handle this just fine? There are legitimate security reasons for disabling these, but has anyone actually disabled them, or asked clients to disable them? I've never really had the feeling that anyone was very concerned about security on Citylink (i could be wrong) anyway. If we have ICMP redirects do we actually need BGP between anyone except ISPs and other multiply connected organisations? Can't we use layer 3 ethernet switches (and possibly monitoring) to greatly improve security in general, lessen the risks with responding to ICMP redirects, and thus address this issue much more easily? -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

4q98 in-addr.audit notice #2
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 02 Oct '98

02 Oct '98

Hello, This is the second notice for this audit run. I am sorry for duplicates that you may receive. This is to let you know that I will be starting the next quarter sweep of the in-addr.arpa tree on 03 oct 1998 UTC. Thats about 8 hours from now. I'd appreciate it if you would review http://www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/in-addr-audit.html for details. Specifically, I'd appreciate your adding the two referenced probes to your xfernets directives so that a valid audit may proceed. The run may take as long as 600 wall-clock hours. The results will be posted to the web page. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. If there are others that you feel should be aware, forward the information on to them and/or me. Thank you for your consideration. --bill (call before you dig) manning --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

WIX interface - full- or half-duplex?
by Joe Abley 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

Should we be running our WIX-facing interfaces half- or full-duplex? We are using 10baseT from the CNHL-supplied media converter... Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

4q98 in-addr.audit notice
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 24 Sep '98

24 Sep '98

Hello, I am sorry for duplicates that you may receive. This is to let you know that I will be starting the next quarter sweep of the in-addr.arpa tree on 03 oct 1998. I'd appreciate it if you would review http://www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/in-addr-audit.html for details. Specifically, I'd appreciate your adding the two referenced probes to your xfernets directives so that a valid audit may proceed. The run may take as long as 600 wall-clock hours. The results will be posted to the web page. A target for this audit run is to attempt to identify DNS version distribution. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. If there are others that you feel should be aware, forward the information on to them and/or me. Thank you for your consideration. --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

MX'ing to 127.0.0.1
by Simon Blake 24 Sep '98

24 Sep '98

Hi Folks Over the weekend some fairly disreputable types in the US sent a whole pile of spam out with fake From: lines which resolved to a server I administer in Wellington. Since the hostname in question (city.wellington.net.nz) has no users and doesn't actually receive any legit email, my first response was to MX it to a spare IP# on our network so that I didn't have to deal with the many (~100K) bounce messages. Upon further reflection, in occured to me that an even better technique for avoiding traffic bills would be to MX city.wellington.net.nz to 127.0.0.1, which I did, and all my spam problems have gone away :-). My question - is this a dodgy thing to do, have I missed some critical reason why I shouldn't do this? Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 15

Re: MX'ing to 127.0.0.1
by Michael Newbery 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 02:11:09PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 03:56:42PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 03:38:16PM +1200, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > > > Unless the remote site happens to have a machine on their internal > > > > network, reachable by their mail relay, numbered 10.99.98.97 :) > > > > > > 0 chance of having that. (Statistically speaking, allowing for > > > rounding errors). > > > > Guess we're right off the end of the bell curve then :) How about... > > > > 127.0.0.2? > > 'fraid not - there are devices that use 127.0.0.2 as a valid address. To paraphrase the Hitchiker's Guide: "this is some new meaning of the term 'valid' with which I was hitherto unacquainted" I guess what you REALLY want to do is locate the address used by the spammers and MX that. ;-) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Regional ISP Operations lists
by John Houlker 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

Hi all I have had an enquiry about e-mail lists in New Zealand for ISP operations, with the idea of adding these to a compilation of such lists for the region. The results will be posted on NANOG. It seems to me that NZNOG is a good candidate. What do you think? Would you like NZNOG added to such a list? By the way, NZNOG currently allows posting from "non-members". Are there other NZ ISP operations lists that should be included in such a compilation? John --------- 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: http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Michael Newbery 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

It's Friday---I can tell :-) --------- 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: http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Dean Pemberton 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

>Is it just our cache, or does http://www.wix.net.nz/ point at a page entitled >"Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club"? > > >Joe Nope it's not you - it seems to look that way from here too. I hope it's not a hint that we should all get out more =) Dean (In his new life as a vendor) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4

http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Joe Abley 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

Is it just our cache, or does http://www.wix.net.nz/ point at a page entitled "Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club"? Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

3 2

{0, 1}.7.202.in-addr.arpa
by Joe Abley 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Is someone going to take control of these in-addr.arpa zones? They're currently pointing to various strange places: 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS elrond.otago.ac.nz. 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS rata.vuw.ac.nz. 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS gemini.dcc.govt.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS gemini.dcc.govt.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS elrond.otago.ac.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS rata.vuw.ac.nz. These nameservers are (reasonably enough!) not responding to queries on these zones. This makes my traceroutes messy, and we can't have that ;) Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

Trouble at NZIX
by Joe Abley 04 Aug '98

04 Aug '98

Hi, We just had a bit of router trouble at NZIX, which should now be fixed. If you've got a minute, could you check connectivity to some well-known CLEAR Net or other CLEAR customer addresses, just to make sure our advertisements are getting through? Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/

1 1

Re: Another Beer?
by Rowan Smith 28 Jul '98

28 Jul '98

I'll be their... I spoke to several people today who all expressed interest as well. I guess it will be a reasonable turn out. -Rowan -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: Chris Wedgwood <chris(a)cybernet.co.nz>; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Another Beer? On Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 03:48:51PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: -> On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 05:37:13PM +1200, Joe Abley wrote: -> -> > -> Shall we say Wednesday next week? The 29th? At that same pub? -> > -> What was it called? -> > -> > Galbraiths. -> -> OK - who's still on for this? I will be popping in, but probably not staying for too long... -> (Oh, btw some evil people should learn to emtpy their voice mail...) I emptied it yesterday. It's not my fault I'm a popular guy :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

3 2

Another Beer?
by Rowan Smith 28 Jul '98

28 Jul '98

It must time for another beer (or four) ? Shall we say Wednesday next week? The 29th? At that same pub? What was it called? How does this sound to people? -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 6

Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Rex Croft, 07 838 4597 18 Jul '98

18 Jul '98

Hello. I have seen the discussion of the need for routable IP address space for connections to WIX. Or at least address space that no one else is using. While Waikato University ran the NZGate service we had several customers renumber and return their old IP address space to us. I never actually got arround to informing Internic, so I now have some class Cs that I know are unused. Looking through my "IP to delete" mail folder I found: Dunedin City Council 202.7.0.0 - 202.7.1.0 This was returned to us years ago. Please feel free to use this address space for WIX. (Do let me know if you decide to use it, so that I don't return it by accident in the distant future.) - Rex Croft --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 11

NZIX Switch Changeover
by Warwick Glendenning 06 Jul '98

06 Jul '98

Dear NZIX Customers, The University of Waikato is replacing the single Cisco CAT 5000 NZIX switch with two fully redundant Cisco WS-2926 switches. The planned date for this cutover is Sunday 26 July at 0400 hours. The outage time will be 2 minutes. This new installation enables the University to rapidly restore the NZIX switch service should the primary switch fail. The installation of two switches also enables ISP's to dual home their routers to the NZIX switch provided they have a suitable repeater installed. ISP routers that are not dual homed will be manually patched to the backup switch in the event of a fault. If any ISP isn't dual homed and wishes to be dual homed please contact me for a quote. Contact points for enquiries: Warwick Glendenning 07-8384363 Dennis Su 07-8384183 After hours 026-3504645 Thanks and best regards Warwick **************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA, Dip.Mgt.St. Team Leader, Networks and Operations Centre Information and Technology Services Division University of Waikato, Hamilton NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax: 07-8384066 Mobile: 025-356121 Email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Warwick Glendenning 05 Jul '98

05 Jul '98

This is were a neutral third party like a University may be of assistance as it should have no particular commercial barrow to push in terms of Internet services. > >- Given that we use the Merit RADB, who would handle disputes in entries in >that database, if we used our own who would set policy there and resolve >disputes ? Thanks and best regards Warwick **************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA, Dip.Mgt.St. Team Leader, Networks and Operations Centre Information and Technology Services Division University of Waikato, Hamilton NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax: 07-8384066 Mobile: 025-356121 Email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

7 18

Re: Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Simon Blake 02 Jul '98

02 Jul '98

Hey On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote: > > > Handing out blocks of 16 to ISPs would probably ease the workload on you > > > CityLink people, and would let ISPs connect people quickly without having > > > to wait for addresses to be allocated. > > > > That was my thinking. > > > > You might want to hold a block that you can allocate out as /32's. > > National Library would not need 16 numbers and is not associated with another > ISP either. Well, not one on Citylink anyway. > There might be other cases like this in the future. Sure. I should've been more specific - I was fully expecting that Citylink would have to act as the "null ISP" and dish out /32's to Citylink customers that don't want/need/have a relationship with another ISP. Cheers Si --------- 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: Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Richard Naylor 01 Jul '98

01 Jul '98

At 04:27 pm 1/07/98 +1200, Joe Abley wrote: >On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Richard Naylor wrote: > > >What do you mean by "routes"? Surely the only route we need is for all >participating ISPs to keep a /23 for that block in their interior >protocols, and to be careful about advertising it to anybody else? > Quite right - I was too quick off the keyboard - my humble apologies to all. >Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again? Groan... Everything to do >with Wellington is _sooo_ confusing to this particular poor naive >Aucklander :) > No - you were awake - I was the dozy one - must be the pressure of work or my cold. What I really mean is that CityLink will use the number and hold a registry for it for WIX members. rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- 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: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
by Richard Naylor 30 Jun '98

30 Jun '98

Sorry to be pedantic, but having a bad cold ....... At 12:06 pm 30/06/98 +1200, Simon Blake wrote: >Hey all. > >On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Andy Linton wrote: > >> space - Citylink isn't private. > >That's for sure. > Just so no one gets the wrong idea, CityLink's TCP/IP service is PUBLIC, CityLink's dark fiber service is PRIVATE. I'd hate people to get the idea that all of our stuff is public - it definately isn't........ sorry to be a pain. - wheres the Paracetamol ? rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- 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: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
by Simon Blake 29 Jun '98

29 Jun '98

Hey yawl. On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote: > Well, it's been a while, and there hasn't been much comment on this. Here > we go, then: a proposal. Feel free to shoot me down in flames if this > doesn't sit happily with anybody else :) > > 1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between > cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral > agreements between individual network operators. No customers should > connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only > network. While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic. Specifically, the shared ethernet that the ISP's are attached to in Wellington has some 50 other organisations on ir, most at 10Mb/s, some at 100Mb/s. On a daily basis we get the "I'm sending data to some other user of Citylink, and it's really slow" grumble, generally because their traffic is going via Waikato, or Auckland, or wherever. Peering between the ISP's should fix most of these problems. Increasingly, however, we're hearing "we're a customer of ISP X, we're sending data to another customer of ISP X, and performance is still rotten", which peering won't necessarily fix, because it isn't an inter ISP issue. With the advent of more 100Mb/s+ connections, and the increasing desire of local organisations to use Citylink to move massive amounts (A2 full colour spreads, for eg) of data between themselves, this situation isn't likely to improve. Therefore it seems desirable that Citylink attached organisations be able to communicate amongst themselves, without needing to pass through an ISP's router. So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves. I'd also observe that VLAN's aren't (yet) a product of Citylink, (although our current backbone switches do support them), and probably won't be until somebody asks. So it behooves the ISP's concerned to get a request into Richard and Alan so that they can get the product development wheels in motion. > 2. To make (1) as smooth as possible, individual operators should make > efforts to install up-to-date route entries and associated policy into the > Merit (Route Arbiter) routing registry. This will also help with a similar > operation on NZIX. Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX? > 3. The Wellington peering network will be called "WIX". ISOCNZ have > reserved wix.net.nz for this purpose. NetLink have offered to keep the > zone fed and watered; any operator should be able to perform zone > transfers for wix.net.nz and NS records for that operators nameserver will > be added by rough concensus (i.e. as long as the nameserver in question > seems to be up most of the time :) > > 4. A class C network will be obtained from ISI by ISOCNZ. This costs > US$500. ISOCNZ will bill a proportion of this amount to all the initial > participants in WIX. The corresponding in-addr.arpa zone will be run by > NetLink on behalf of the peering community, in much the same way as > wix.net.nz. With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing. Cheers Si Simon Blake simon(a)citylink.co.nz +64 25 300 825 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

8 16

Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 17 Jun '98

17 Jun '98

Hi again, ISI are prepared to allocate us an unencumbered class C network for WIX, which should be sufficient for ISP-peering-over-CNH purposes. There are some costs involved (below). Basically the options are: 1. ISI perform allocation of IP addresses to individual ISPs, maintain contact information, etc, etc. This costs US$1200 per year (details below). 2. ISI delegate the address block and let us sort that kind of thing out amongst ourselves. That costs US$500 per year. What do people think? Given that the use of CityLink specifically for ISP peering purposes seems to be beyond CNH's mandate, I presume that if we were to go for this the fees should be paid by someone other than CNH. Is this a candidate for a proposal to ISOCNZ or Domainz (or even Uniforum) for funding? Or should we just have a whip-round? Yes, you may well ask what I am doing messing about with this at 3:30am on a Saturday morning. That is a very good question :) Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) From: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Subject: Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand > > Looks good so far. Now we come to the cost issue. Currently we > > are asking for a registration fee of US$100/month for maintaining > > the delegation and registering each connecting participant. > > This is a fee of US$1200.00 per year for the whole exchange and > > all its participants. > > > > Is this acceptable? > > Could you clarify exactly what the fee covers, and exactly what > registration fuction ISI performs? The fee covers the cost of keeping up with the delegation as a /24 and for each /32 underneath it. This involves regular checkups with each site to ensure that the contact information is correct. This works out to be about 8 hours a month, average for a clerk to perform the contacts and followups. > What we are really looking for is a 24-bit block of globally-unique > addresses, in-addr.arpa delegations for the block, and that's about it. We > have good cooperation between all ISPs involved, and do not anticipate > needing a third party to allocate individual addresses. If you are willing to take on the whole task, then the cost is an annual registration fee of US$500.00 This is to ensure that the exchange is still functioning and meets the use criteria. > Does the monthly charge still apply in this situation? I broke out the fee as a monthly cost. Generally the invoices are annual, with some on a quarterly basis and two are on multiyear agreements. --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 6

BGP peering at NZIX
by Joe Abley 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi all, Following up yet again, this time on some discussions to date regarding peering at NZIX using BGP. Just a couple of things which have sprung into my mind... Running OSPF and BGP simultaneously on NZIX routers will continue to be necessary until we have gained critical mass, and have reached a stage at which OSPF can be depreciated. Given that this is the short-term situation, it seems to me that we need to be careful of a couple of things. I am using CLEAR as an example only :) 1. If CLEAR is to peer with provider X over NZIX, then we will want a list of routes from provider X so that we can build a filter for routes received from X's BGP speaker(s). Until X's routes are entered and maintained in a RR of some kind (like the RADB), adds moves and changes to this list will be a manual process. [*] 2. If X makes more specific (i.e. longer prefix) advertisements using OSPF, those are the routes we will use. This is important if CLEAR is to peer with X somewhere else in addition to NZIX (e.g. WIX), as we will always prefer longer-prefix routes. 3. If X makes less specific (i.e. shorter prefix) advertisements across NZIX than they do their global transit provider, then we will likely route to them via Australia or the US. As we get things going, there will probably be times where routing becomes sub-optimal (or, in fact, completely broken :) Could I suggest that people going ahead with BGP across NZIX announce their progress to this list to help everybody track down problems if (when) they arise? [*] Not having route objects stored in a RR of some kind is going to make maintaining route filters a sticky business for all concerned. There is running code at Merit - do we have loose agreement that the RADB is a suitable place to do this? If there is interest, I am happy to dredge through the appropriate documentation and produce a quick-and-dirty guide to RADB object manipulation. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi all, Following on from some of our WIX-numbering discussions at Taupo, I have received word from APNIC that a delegation direct from them for WIX is not possible within the scope of their current policy. However, Yoshiko has pointed me towards Bill Manning of ISI, who has been delegating address space to other exchanges around the world already. I have sent him a brief description of the problem, and have asked for assistance -- copy of note attached below FYcollectiveI. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 02:00:58 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Cc: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net>, hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand Bill, Yoshiko ChongFong of APNIC gave me your name, and mentioned that you were currently involved in the delegation of globally-unique IP address space to neutral exchange points. I am writing regarding a relatively new neutral exchange network located in Wellington, New Zealand. Wellington City Council have facilitated a city-wide fibre-optic network called CityLink (http://www.citylink.co.nz) and one of the key applications of that network is an emulated ethernet network called "WIX" provided to facilitate peering between the various ISPs who maintain points of presence in Wellington. I work for CLEAR Net, an ISP in NZ, and am writing informally on behalf of the New Zealand Network Operators Group (NZNOG). The desire to formalise peering arrangements over WIX has been expressed at several recent NZNOG meetings. CityLink have a mandate to provide connectivity, but are keen to allow the NZ ISP community to develop their own procedures/guidelines for the operation of WIX as a neutral exchange point. To date limited peering has been obtained using rfc1918 address space; however, the non-uniqueness of the ranges used so far (and an inability to locate a suitable range of rfc1918 addresses that suits _everybody_) is preventing wider peering. I am investigating the possiblity of obtaining a block of globally unique addresses with which to number ISP interfaces on WIX. The intention is that these addresses will be reachable from within NZ ISPs, but will not be advertised internationally. Hence a subnet allocated from within a supernet delegation operated by any single ISP is undesirable, since (a) any such network would be advertised by virtue of the supernet route, and (b) the address range is not particularly "neutral". New Zealand has a history of free and unencumbered peering between domestic providers using exchanges such as NZIX as well as bilateral peering arrangements; the inexpensive network transport within Wellington provided by CityLink fibre has the potential to greatly enhance connectivity for all concerned. I have approached APNIC, whose position is that a 24-bit block is not possible to delegate from their supernets within their current policy. Does the application I have described fit your exchange numbering project? Regards, Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:29:09 +0900 From: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net> To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: Re: (Neutral Exchange Point in Wellingon, New Zealand ) Hi, >1. Does an allocation of a separate block for this exchange point fit >in with APNIC policy for block allocation? Not really. APNIC usually allocates address space to ISPs and the initial allocation is a /19. Since the requirement is barely a /24, APNIC would not be comfortable accepting WIX to be a member of APNIC. Also we do NOT allocate separate /24 block to existing members for this sort of purposes. >2. If the application fits general APNIC policy, can CLEAR apply for >the address space (by virtue of its APNIC membership) on behalf of >Wellington City Council? As I explained above, APNIC cannot allocate separate /24 block to WIX through CLEAR and we do not recommend them to become a separate member of APNIC either. What APNIC recommend is that as Bill Manning, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU, is allocating address space to exchange points. You might want to contact him for more details. Here is the URL for his project is http://www.isi.edu/div7/naps/. Regards, Yoshiko -APNIC hostmaster ---------------- --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Arron Scott 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Ok ... so I didn't mean the whole question of who will arbitrate a RR at the three IX points to dominate the whole list, but I do think it raises a concern with such systems. My own personal view is that this should have been the kind of stuff a Code of Conduct should have described, or should be defined by a board governing each IX. Democracy doesn't always get things done, sometime someone has to just define the rules. If we are to employ a Route Registry at any of the IX's or indeed on a point-to-point peering connection with each other, then we need to ensure the rules are agreed upon first. There are a number of downstream ISPs that sit behind the likes of the wholesalers and the top 10 ISPs, and these guys will be directly affected by such a policy, and need to know the rules as well. Sorry this next bit gets a bit confusing. Take JimISP who have "BigBusiness Inc" attached to them, and they all reside under Xtra under NetGate. Due to misinformation :) "BigBusiness" are convinced to move to DaveISP who are under ClearNet who are under Clear. Now ... who in this case is responsible for making sure the RR is updated, realising that JimISP could have entered the entry in the RR themselves and Xtra and NetGate may have nothing to do with the change at all ? Also ... who is going to make sure DaveISP knows how to get the customer updated in the RR when they get new customers ? Finally ... who is going to have to update the RR at 2:30am on Sunday morning when the customer demands that they be moved right now ? Right now I'm not sure we know half of what's going on out there, the RR will help us to find out for sure, but it may also delay implementation times for those who do move from provider to provider, which may make us very unpopular. Arron Scott _________________________________________________________________________ Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

From: Andy Linton <Andy.Linton(a)netlink.co.nz> > >I'd have gone for 'half of the net community' if I were saying it. (:-) > >I'm curious as to why the body that administers the 'nz' namespace >should be perceived as a controversial choice. I'm not suggesting that >they run anything, merely act as arbitrators in the event of dispute. At >least each of the members of this list and/or their employers have the >option of joining ISOCNZ and voting in a council to formulate policy. >I'd throw down the gauntlet to the members of this list to join and >change ISCONZ if they don't like how it's run. > >If ISOCNZ isn't a suitable candidate then can we hear some other >suggestions. > >I'd say the University of Waikato aren't an impartial observer in this >and the ISPs have no say in who would make up the members of an >arbitration panel from that source. > >Of course, we could form YANONZ (Yet Another Networking Organisation in >NZ) and waste even more time trying to raise funds and have meetings. > I'd agree with using ISOCNZ for this sort of thing. I think that is what it is there for. The only issue I would have with using ISOCNZ is the technical knowledge that this sort of role might require. I'm not sure that this exists in ISOCNZ at this point in time although I may be completely wrong. Perhaps what we need is something like ISOCNZ to get everyone working together. Maybe it's time we seriously build a tighter community between everyone, which hasn't existed in the past. Just don't tell the commerce commision I said that cause I doubt they would understand :) I don't want to see another networking group formed. I am sure everyone is aware of the amount of bull**** which comes from trying to do that sort of thing. Setting up committees... the continual arguments across emails... its not worth it. And everyone will end up doing their own thing because they will not have time for the politics. I think this has been shown time and time again to almost everyone on this list, at some time in their internet career. -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

I'd like to start a hopefully breif discussion of the list mechanics... I'd like to see the reply-to field utilised to only have nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz in it. So as to avoid the constant double up of messages I am sure most of us are receiving. I always try and trim out the senders name, but its easy to forget. Thoughts anyone? -Rowan PS If it's just the fact that I am using outlook express shoot me now :) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 3

Re: Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

> (a) someone @waikato has just modified the majordomo config, or > (b) Chris is doing something devious with procmail. > >I think it's probably (b) :) It is b :) See your headers below. -Rowan Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:51:27 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> X-Sender: jabley(a)buddha.clear.net.nz Reply-To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Reply to field In-Reply-To: <19980604183543.A24635(a)caffeine.ix.net.nz> Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980604184649.17427B-100000(a)buddha.clear.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Precedence: bulk Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1764 > >-- >Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 >Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 > --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

I think that with local peering on the increase throughout New Zealand a RADB or similar would be extremly useful. At NZIX for instance we should all be running BGP, with filters to prevent unauthorised advertisments arriving from someone elses router. While a RADB would only be as good as the information it held and how well you could trust someone to enter data into it. It would still be better than what we have at the moment (almost nothing). I think almost everybody has had to change a metric at Waikato because someone has accidently advertised the wrong Network. I know I did it when we multi-homed a netlink customer several years ago. And I know it has happened to me serveral times. I actually remember a 4am 6 way conversation with Sandy yourself, KC and Iprolink trying to work out a OSPF routing error that turned out to be a Cisco bug, which was only preventable by adding a access-list. We don't have to invest in a server or nominate someone to maintain one, we could all use the merit radb today. The issue arrises (as you have mentioned) when we register "our" IP Addresses against our AS. Most ISPs still have legacy IP space which "belongs" to the larger /16, /15 etc that netway currently advertise, this usually comes from companies which don't want to change. I would like to have the addresses which these organisations have been allocated by Apnic (nznic at the time), routed with our AS number. And as such stored in a database with my AS so that other local bodies that I peer with may use this information to build reliable filter-lists. This would be advantageous to a company like ICONZ, where by if a major international outage occured (heaven forbid :), with our supplier then we would be able to come to some arrangement with another ISP that we peer with to use their international capacity albeit at a decreased performance level, this could be acheived simply by changing some routing filters, assuming that all the appropriate entries were in the RADB(s). Education is required to ensure that people don't think that they own a certain IP address range indefinitely. As the internet requires the addresses to be aggregated organisations need to know this, and understand why. I think that this has been shown by the recent campaign to bring the 190.xx (or what ever it was) range back into some real size perspective. -Rowan -----Original Message----- From: Arron Scott <arrons(a)netgate.net.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Tuesday, 2 June 1998 17:58 Subject: Re: Route Policy Database/Filters >Hi all, > >I would be interested to know what scenarios people have for using such a >database. NetGate currently has a fairly complex routing table, and yet our >boundary routing inside New Zealand still remains fairly simple. > >I am also slightly concerned that having these entries in a database would >infer some "right of ownership" for certain address space, which would do >the concept of hierarchical routing a server disservice. From my >experience, any time someone enters a new entry in the RADB, even if it is >a "black hole" from someone elses CIDR block they feel it gives them a >right to use that given address space indefinately. We may also have to >consider asking for the right to administer sub-delegations of our APNIC >registered addresses ourselves. > >I am not against a router server, I am however keen to ensure it offers >tangible benefits to the users, and improves things for the Internet >society at large. > >Arron Scott >Telecom NZ > >At 05:03 PM 2/06/98 +1200, John Houlker wrote: >>I understand a number of ISPs in NZ would be interested in using a route >>policy database to allow communication of this information and, in >>particular, to enable automated maintenance of filters to control route >>policies. Recently we have had a Computer Science student run an informal >>survey of some ISPs on this issue and again there was an interested >>response from most; he has also been revisiting the situation in respect to >>running a database using the "Route Arbiter" code. I didn't get to the >>NZNOG meeting (perhaps this was discussed there), but could "NZNOG" >>consider this question and perhaps encourage the application of such >>coordinated controls on route information? >> >>In principle I believe the IRR could be used for such a purpose, and it may >>be good practise to load AS/route object information in there in any case >>(it is especially important for multi-homed networks), but maybe there >>should be a NZ based service for NZ information. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>John >> >> >>--------- >>To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >>where the body of your message reads: >>unsubscribe nznog >> >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 >Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 >Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 >Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.net.nz >--------- >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

3 2

Majordomo results (fwd)
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

To save anybody else from bothering (and as there seems to be some interest) here are the results of a "who nznog". A motley bunch indeed :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:03:42 +1200 From: Majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz To: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Majordomo results -- >>>> who nznog Members of list 'nznog': rhicks(a)clear.co.nz jclark(a)telstra.co.nz a.scott(a)netgate.net.nz jabley(a)clear.co.nz nznog(a)netlink.co.nz tonyw(a)iconz.co.nz j.houlker(a)waikato.ac.nz sandy(a)netgate.net.nz noc(a)waikato.ac.nz OOLSSON(a)clear.co.nz rowan(a)iconz.co.nz D1NC(a)telecom.co.nz chris(a)cybernet.co.nz craig(a)laptop.iprolink.co.nz T.McGregor(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz markg(a)iprolink.co.nz Dean.Pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz cthorpe(a)team.xtra.co.nz 18 subscribers >>>> --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Publically available who nznog command
by Rowan Smith 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

The only thing I might be concerned about is the use of this feature for building spam lists. I would only be concerned about this if I currently didn't get any spam, but as I get upwards of 500/day I don't care, but others might, which probably makes this email pointless. :) Would it be possible to allow the who function to only be executed by members of the list? While this wouldn't stop people from obtaining the user list by subscribing doing a who and then unscribing. It would stop the bulk of them of they were informed that the command was disabled by the list owner, as most people wouldn't try to use the list command by subscribing. I don't even know if majordomo can do this. I think having the who command available is a invaluable asset for everyone. And it should be enabled anyway. Just my 2cents worth. I should probably just shut up. :) -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Hands Up
by Arron Scott 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Hmmm ... interesting response to the hands up, Clear, NetGate, Telstra, Natlib, ICONZ, NetLink and UOW by my count ... so are IHUG, Xtra, Voyager, IBM, CompuServe, IProLink, CommNet and any of you others out there ? Again I would ask for the good of this list can we have the list members publicised ? Anyone from UOW got a comment on this ? If the other major players in this business aren't on this list then it's not a very good forum to have deep and meaningfuls in. Thanks Arron Scott _________________________________________________________________________ Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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

List of members of NZNOG mailing list
by Rex Croft, 07 838 4597 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Hello all. Apparently this list is set to not allow the "who nznog" command. If I don't hear any views to the contrary, I will change this and email a list of members on Friday afternoon. To Donald Neal, would you prefer that I took over maintaining this list since it has sprung into use? - Rex Croft, University of Waikato --------- 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: Beer
by Roger Hicks 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

On Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:33 PM, Dean Pemberton [SMTP:dean(a)dean.natlib.govt.nz] wrote: > > > > oo oo.. I came in late, but the subject says 'beer' so it can't be bad... > > Yeah - the beer idea sounds good - but unfortunatly it is a long way to drive for an ale. > The place is good...the beer's great...it's close enough for me... Why did you have to select the wrong day :-((( Have one for me! R. --------- 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: Beer
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Tony Wicks wrote: > So where is this Galbraith's ? Ah - hadn't thought of that :) Galbraith's is in the old library building on the corner of Symonds St and Mt Eden road. Just next to the car park. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

3 3

Hands Up
by Dean Pemberton 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

I'm here too. Dean -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton BSC(Compsci) | email: dean.pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz| Datacommunications Analyst |cphone: +64-21-633-434 | National Library of NZ |All opinions contained within this | PGP key avail from keyserver |email are purely my own. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Hands up!
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Hi all, If you're currently lurking on this list (or have just joined) could you mail something in so we can see you? All in the interests of promoting some kind of discussion, obviously - if you're happy not discussing anything then don't bother :) Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

Beer
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Anybody interested in doing some kind of get-to-know-you beer-related exercise in Auckland some time next week? Anybody here from KCBBS, Xtra, Iprolink, Titan, Sinesurf, Cybernet, ....? Who have I missed out? Sorry about missing you out. Bear in mind that it's Friday :) If people _are_ interested, how about going for next Wednesday at Galbraith's? 7pm? -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

4 4

Publically available who nznog command -Reply
by Donald Neal 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Subscribers, I have this afternoon changed the list's setings so that it allows a list of subscribers to be sent to anyone who sends the right request from an address which is subscribed to the list. (This excludes people reading this through an exploder.) The right request is who nznog sent to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Any objections? - Donald Neal (Telecom 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

NZNOG list headers
by Donald Neal 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

NZNOG list subscribers, It is easy to set the NZNOG list so that all messages go out as Reply-to the list. I prefer not to do this, since it makes it easier for people to accidentally publish email they wanted to be person to person. I would rather see people choosing to send mail to the list. My opinion can, of course, be changed by enthusiasm for the change from other subscribers .... - Donald Neal --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters -Reply
by Donald Neal 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

The problem with setting up any new organisation and then giving it powers to arbitrate anything is that technical staff can't do that. Only big-time corporate lawyers can agree to that sort of thing. Anyone proposing this needs to think about what it would mean in practice to try to get it going. And yet again there's the matter of competition law. - Donald Neal (Telecom 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: Beer
by Olof Olsson 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

Yes, I am another lurker... Meeting for a couple of beers tomorrow nite... sounds nice to me! --Olof -- Olof Olsson, System Architect, CLEAR Net, CLEAR Communications Ltd. "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" -- O.W. --------- 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: Internet Exchanges
by Rowan Smith 01 Jun '98

01 Jun '98

>At the NZNOG meeting at Waikato we discussed domain names for the Internet >Exchanges in Auckland and Wellington. I have registered the domain names >aix.net.nz and wix.net.nz on behalf of the NZ Internet community. The >registered Administrative contact for these domains is the Internet >Society of New Zealand (ISOCNZ) who will hold these domains on behalf of >the community. I would like to pursue the idea of registering the 2nd level domain ix.nz. Does anyone else feel that this could be a useful addition to the New Zealand DNS system? >Joe Abley is going to obtain some IP numbers for IX purposes. These can be >used in conjunction with the above names. I'm happy to provide the >IN-ADDR.ARPA DNS for those as well. Andy, as I have DNS servers on the fiber in Wellington it probably makes sense for me to slave the DNS for WIX as well. And I suppose Master it one day when you are fed up with maintaining it :) -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Re: Hands up!
by Tony Wicks 31 May '98

31 May '98

>> Warwick Glendenning at Waikato NOC. Yes I am keen. > >That's cool. Is anybody else out there? > Yes, barely. --------- 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: Hands up!
by Rowan Smith 28 May '98

28 May '98

*yawn* Huh? -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Hands up! >Hi Warwick, > >On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warwick Glendenning wrote: > >> Warwick Glendenning at Waikato NOC. Yes I am keen. > >That's cool. Is anybody else out there? > > >Joe > >-- >Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 >Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 > --------- 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: Hands up!
by Joe Abley 28 May '98

28 May '98

Hi Warwick, On Wed, 27 May 1998, Warwick Glendenning wrote: > Warwick Glendenning at Waikato NOC. Yes I am keen. That's cool. Is anybody else out there? Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

Traffic Exchange
by Roger Hicks 25 May '98

25 May '98

OK, Joe, here's a subject. I'm preparing comments for an OECD Policy Workshop. The topic: National and International Internet Traffic Exchange: "Traditionally ISPs have exchanged traffic using a different model to PTOs. Whereas a system of settlements, sometimes known as the accounting rate system, developed for PSTN traffic, large ISPs have exchanged traffic under a system known as 'peering'. While other methods of interconnection payment exist amongst ISPs, peering still accounts for the bulk of traffic exchange. Today new arrangements are emerging for traffic exchange on a national and international basis. This session aims to explore what the implications of the current and emerging traffic exchange arrangements are for infrastructure development. Issues for consideration are whether they are non-discriminatory, transparent and provide incentives for infrastructure development and open markets. A better understanding of this subject could help to head off a potential point of international friction" Any comments, suggestions, issue etc?? (If this is outside the scope of this list, I apologise and will take it offline for those interested) Regards R. On Tuesday, May 26, 1998 1:37 PM, Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] wrote: > Hi all, > > If you're currently lurking on this list (or have just joined) could you > mail something in so we can see you? > > All in the interests of promoting some kind of discussion, obviously - if > you're happy not discussing anything then don't bother :) > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 > Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

CLEAR routes across NZIX
by Joe Abley 22 Apr '98

22 Apr '98

Hi all, As mentioned in an e-mail to pretty much everybody last week, I will be changing our advertisements across NZIX to remove all the long-prefix subnets we currently advertise across the NZIX OSPF process and replace them with less-specific supernet routes. Note that the supernet routes I announce will be exactly the same length as those CLEAR advertise via BGP to Netgate, Telstra, MCI and Teleglobe. This may make you prefer an international route to CLEAR rather than using the exchange, since routes learnt by BGP from external neighbours are frequently preferred to OSPF-learnt routes. If this applies to you, then there are two options open that I can see: 1. We are perfectly willing to talk BGP to anybody on NZIX. In fact, any opportunity not to run OSPF across NZIX would be most welcome :) Please mail noc(a)clix.net.nz to set this up. 2. On Ciscos you can lower the administrative distance of the NZIX OSPF process so that it is preferred over EBGP (or raise the corresponding distance metric on the BGP process to make it less preferable). This is what some on the Exchange are doing already, I believe. I will be doing as much testing as I can following the change, and if there are problems I will back the change out. I expect to start (and hopefully finish) changes between 0400 and 0800 tomorrow morning. If you (or your customers) notice any loss in connectivity to CLEAR or to CLEAR-connected networks I would be very grateful for the feedback. Please mail any reports to noc(a)clix.net.nz. Many thanks, Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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: IP Addressing
by Donald Neal 22 Apr '98

22 Apr '98

At 03:44 PM 22/4/98 +1200, Joe Abley wrote: >Anybody else going to Uniforum this year? Maybe we should organise a NOG >BOF? (NOG BOF. How rediculous :) Hmm. Or shortened again to NB? I'm due to be there on Thursday 21st. (The time allocated for BOF's is that evening, but something else could doubtless be arranged if it suited people better.) I'm not able to be there for more than that day, since that's the week I'm due to start a new job with, um, Telecom. - Donald Neal -- Donald Neal Systems Programmer/Analyst Information Technology and Drycleaning Services, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

IP Addressing
by Arron Scott 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

OK, so to continue with my discussion, let's talk about IP addressing. Known: All RFC's and most International Internet access providers encourage the use of hierarchical CIDR based IP addressing. This is for two main objectives, save the Net from address exhaustion and the curse of IPv6, and to ensure the core routers have enough memory to be able to continue forwarding packets. When a downstream customer moves from one provider to another, and his class C network goes with him, his network is now added to the routing table as a black hole, which increases memory utilisation in the core, one or two of these is fine, but hundreds is not very acceptable to the upstream providers. Unknown: - If a customer does move providers how long should they have before the must renumber into their new providers space ? - What size block of a providers space might be considered portable ? - What steps can be taken to recover the address space if the customer does not relinquish it ? Arron Scott Telecom 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

Things To Do - Arron Scott
by Donald Neal 19 Apr '98

19 Apr '98

NZNOG People, This message was sent to the list just over two months ago by Arron Scott. I'm sending it again (without asking him first) because of the number of people to have joined the list since then. - Donald Neal - - - - - - Hi Donald, sorry, busy as ever. Yes I am getting these. As for some things I would like to see happen: First of all, I think it's important we know who's subscribed to this list, for the sake of fairness, so can we be kept abrest of changes. I think it's impportant that we communicate with all of the main providers of Internet in New Zealand, and am keen particularly to see IBM, Compuserve, and IHUG invited. No point in being secretive. What should we accomplish, IMHO: IP addressing consensus. We have to have a firm and agreed policy as to what happens with portability of address space. Domestic peering strategy, eg. progressing the AMX. Communication lines, particularly contact agreements for movement of customers from supplier to supplier or faults due to incorrect advertisements. Should Telecom be able to call Telstra staff in the middle of the weekend to get them to stop advertising a customer ? If so how ? If not what do we tell our customers ? What should we not do, IMHO: We are not a regulatory body of any kind, this should be a communication forum only allowing us to discuss and action topics as above. Contractual or formal Agreements should be made outside of this group. Arron -- Donald Neal Systems Programmer/Analyst Information Technology and Drycleaning Services, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Changes in OSPF advertisements made from CLEAR over NZIX
by Joe Abley 13 Apr '98

13 Apr '98

Hi all, CLEAR currently advertises connectivity to its internal networks and those of its customers across NZIX. The external routes which are currently redistributed into the exchange OSPF process include a large number of long-prefix routes, such as /30s and /28s; in the interests of being tidy (and consistent with CLEAR's BGP advertisements) I would like to summarise most, if not all, of these advertisements by distributing supernet routes. For example, instead of >100 individual routes within CLEAR's 203.97.0.0/17 CIDR block, I would like to advertise a single 203.97.0.0/17 supernet route. Total number of supernets to be announced would be around 30. This approach presupposes that (a) all equipment connected to the exchange can handle supernetting, and (b) that the loss of specificity in the domestic routes for CLEAR's networks is not going to cause problems with conflicting BGP routes picked up from other global transit providers. There may also be route filters which need to be updated. In the interests of maintaining connectivity within NZ, I would be grateful if you could take the time to consider whether the changes broadly outlined above will affect the way that your network treats routes to CLEAR across NZIX. If you could give me some feedback (no matter how general) this week, it would be most appreciated. I have attempted to distribute this message to as many exchange partners as I have been able to find e-mail addresses for - please feel free to forward copies on to other interested parties. As an aside, the NZNOG list operated (facilitated?) by Donald Neal at Waikato Univeristy would provide a good forum for these kinds of announcements in future. If you haven't already, you might consider subscribing - send mail to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz with the line "subscribe nznog" in the message body (Donald please correct me if I've stuffed that up :) Regards, Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net 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

Publicising this list
by Joe Abley 29 Mar '98

29 Mar '98

Hi all, This would seem to be a sensible forum to get some discussion running on peering within NZ, either across the NZIX switch, across WIX or via bilateral peer-to-peer circuits. It might also be a good place to gauge enthusiasm for a "BGP only" policy at NZIX, with or without a local route server. Might I suggest that we pursue some low-key publicity of this list to get network administrators from Netlink, IHUG, Iconz, Pronet, Actrix, Voyager, Xtra(?), etc, etc involved and speaking about these issues? >From the rumblings I have been hearing critical mass for the eradication of OSPF on the NZIX switch should be a fairly straightforward first objective, and recent domestic peering "upsets" would have been easier to track down with a list full of network people. Joe -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ Every solution breeds new problems. --------- 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: Hello, Arron?
by Arron Scott 23 Feb '98

23 Feb '98

Hi Donald, sorry, busy as ever. Yes I am getting these. As for some things I would like to see happen: First of all, I think it's important we know who's subscribed to this list, for the sake of fairness, so can we be kept abrest of changes. I think it's impportant that we communicate with all of the main providers of Internet in New Zealand, and am keen particularly to see IBM, Compuserve, and IHUG invited. No point in being secretive. What should we accomplish, IMHO: IP addressing consensus. We have to have a firm and agreed policy as to what happens with portability of address space. Domestic peering strategy, eg. progressing the AMX. Communication lines, particularly contact agreements for movement of customers from supplier to supplier or faults due to incorrect advertisements. Should Telecom be able to call Telstra staff in the middle of the weekend to get them to stop advertising a customer ? If so how ? If not what do we tell our customers ? What should we not do, IMHO: We are not a regulatory body of any kind, this should be a communication forum only allowing us to discuss and action topics as above. Contractual or formal Agreements should be made outside of this group. Arron -----Original Message----- From: Donald Neal <d.neal(a)waikato.ac.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Thursday, 19 February 1998 11:33 Subject: Hello, Arron? >Hush, hush, whisper who dares. >Is Arron Scott out there somewheres? > >- Donald >-- >Donald Neal | Q: How many programmers does it take to change >Systems Programmer/Analyst | a light bulb? >The University of Waikato | A: Two. One always leaves half-way >through the >Hamilton, New Zealand | project. >--------- >To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to >majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads > > --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Mailing List Archives Now on Web
by Donald Neal 20 Feb '98

20 Feb '98

NZNOG People, The archive of this mailing list is now available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ . Assuming I've got everything right, the web pages there are updated as each new message comes in. - Donald Neal -- Donald Neal | Q: How many programmers does it take to change Systems Programmer/Analyst | a light bulb? The University of Waikato | A: Two. One always leaves half-way through the Hamilton, New Zealand | project. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Hello, Arron?
by Donald Neal 19 Feb '98

19 Feb '98

Hush, hush, whisper who dares. Is Arron Scott out there somewheres? - Donald -- Donald Neal | Q: How many programmers does it take to change Systems Programmer/Analyst | a light bulb? The University of Waikato | A: Two. One always leaves half-way through the Hamilton, New Zealand | project. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads

1 0

NZNOG
by Donald Neal 13 Feb '98

13 Feb '98

OK, in reponse to Roger Hicks' posting below I've added the people named in the headers of his message to a mailing list I've called nznog. The address to send mail to is nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz. There's a fair amount else the Majordomo and related software on that box can do, but there doesn't seem a lot of point to explaining that just yet. Could people receiving this please reply to me verifying that thye have seen it? Oh, and I am interested in Arronb's ideas. - Donald Neal >From: Roger Hicks <RHICKS(a)clear.co.nz> >To: "'Donald Neal'" <d.neal(a)waikato.ac.nz> >Cc: "'Jamie Clark'" <JClark(a)oibunzl2.telstra.com.au>, > "'arron scott'" > <arrons(a)internet.netway.co.nz>, > Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> >Subject: RE: FW: NZNOG >Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:56:11 +1300 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) > >Donald > >Sorry for not responding I've been away from the office... > >I appreciate your offer of hosting a mail list (providing Joe doesn't >think I'm doing him out of a job!). Can organise is with us (to: and >cc:) on it, please. Aaron has made some interesting comments about the >purpose of an NZNOG so may he can post this as a starting point. > >I suggest we get others to join in as well....... who should we start >inviting?? > >NB I'm also out next week >Regards >R. > > >On Thursday, February 12, 1998 1:35 PM, Donald Neal >[SMTP:d.neal(a)waikato.ac.nz] wrote: >> At 12:54 PM 11/2/98 +1300, Joe Abley wrote: >> >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Roger Hicks wrote: >> > >> >> Please excuse the long delay in circulating this. I had mentioned >to >> >> different people but ended up getting side-tracked, going on >holiday, >> >> having to do work and other things ;-) >> >> >> >> Donald and I discussed the (perrenial) issue of getting an NZNOG >going. >> >> Any comments?? >> > >> >Sounds good... Who wants to run the mailing list? I can probably sort >> >something out here (or at home), but it'll likely take me a little >while. >> >> I'm happy to add it to the fifty or so already run from here. I can do >that >> this afternoon. (Well, actually all I need to do is clean out the >> subscribers from the list which was created here in 1995 but never >used.) >> >> - Donald Neal >> -- >> Donald Neal | Q: How many programmers does it take to >change >> Systems Programmer/Analyst | a light bulb? >> The University of Waikato | A: Two. One always leaves half-way >> through the >> Hamilton, New Zealand | project. > > -- Donald Neal | Q: How many programmers does it take to change Systems Programmer/Analyst | a light bulb? The University of Waikato | A: Two. One always leaves half-way through the Hamilton, New Zealand | project. ************ LIST FOOTER ************* This message was posted by Donald Neal <d.neal(a)waikato.ac.nz> - If you wish to reply privately, send your reply to Donald Neal <d.neal(a)waikato.ac.nz>, otherwise your reply will be sent to nznog. To Unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz with the command "UNSUBSCRIBE nznog" in the **BODY** of the message.

1 1