- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by barry＠unix.co.nz 07 May '06

07 May '06

I'm sure majority of the devices would be added on an internal network such as telstra clears cable tv (digital) and cable modems (management), only 1 live ip is assigned for internet services. From memory a few mobile providers assign you a internal ip too and you're nat'ed out to the net. But yeah IPv6 is just around the corner. Thanks Barry > http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/187200459 > > > -- > Juha Saarinen > www.geekzone.co.nz/juha > www.computerworld.co.nz > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >

12 23

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 07 May '06

07 May '06

It allows each machine to have a globally unique IP address, without any form NAT. NAT breaks several protocols, and generally makes life more difficult. Also, if you want to use the same port for several machines (like 443) and you only have a single IP address then it makes life more difficult. For example, we have a single IPv4 address on a DSL tail. However, our entire network is IPv6 enabled using a 6to4 tunnel. We have several of our servers providing an https service. Thanks to IPv6 I can now easily browse to any of these servers from any of the remote locations that we have already IPv6 enabled. We are looking to actively start using IPv6 at many of our clients this year. We'll be using 6to4 tunnels again (because no one sells IPv6 transit ...). This means we can load a management agent on their machines, and have our server talk to those agents over a VPN. Normally we would have the grief of ensuring their private IP address range is different from all of our other client addresses ranges. With every machine having a globally unqiue IPv6 address this is no longer an issue. Of course, there is always an IPv4 RFC1918 clash, and we end up with the option of limited management, or a renumbering exercise. The sooner everyone adopts IPv6, and we can easily get native IPv6 transit the better. -----Original Message----- Still, I'm a little puzzled why a single IPv4 address (with lots of NAT behind it) is really any different from a single IPv6 prefix with lots of bits on the right hand side.

1 0

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Andy Linton 07 May '06

07 May '06

Joe complained that the Dancing Turtle wasn't enough justification to go to IPv6 but clearly the risk of eternal damnation should be a good reason. Devout Catholics will soon be issued with an IPv6 address at Mass on Sundays and those who don't have one that's regularly used.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:30 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> Reply-To: jeroen(a)unfix.org Organization: Unfix To: v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> CC: ARIN PPML <ppml(a)arin.net>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) Greets, Jeroen

1 0

search engine that shows illegal downloads
by Antonio Broughton 07 May '06

07 May '06

Hi, just found this news article.. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/711264 what interested me most, was this "search engine" that allows the federation to see "any illegal downloading in New Zealand" 1) Is this something Telecom has come up with :) (couldn't resist it) 2) How do they determine if its illegal, or not just someones home made video of Debbie does Auckland etc 3) How would this be possible? The third question is the most serious one, just wondering how there could be a search engine that showed this information? This would have to be implemented at the backbone level? -- Antonio Broughton

5 4

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 06 May '06

06 May '06

I've tried to buy commercial IPv6 connectivity in NZ. I can't buy it, full stop. -----Original Message----- ... IPv6 has been well-and-truly implemented. It's the deployment that's missing. To replay a conversation that we had in Wellington earlier in the year: Deployment costs money; money requires budget; budget requires either revenue or cost reduction (or both). Who is willing to pay more for IPv6, given that pretty much the only extra content available for your money will be a lonely, somewhat poorly-animated Japanese turtle? (Don't all shout at once.)

2 1

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 06 May '06

06 May '06

How about every ISP in NZ. -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Druett [mailto:lindsay(a)wired.net.nz] Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2006 8:09 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb ... Anyway, what doesn't support IPv6 now ? I'm picking that what doesn't support IPv6 now is more than likely to be either upgraded or in the bin by 2008.

1 0

Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Juha Saarinen 06 May '06

06 May '06

http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/187200459 -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha www.computerworld.co.nz

1 0

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 04 May '06

04 May '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9560 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060209 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9560 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.78.240.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.119.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.46.190.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060505 source: NZRR --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9439 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060209 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9439 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.78.240.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.119.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.46.190.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060505 source: NZRR

1 0

Re Xtra's Usenet Cancellations...
by Mark Foster 03 May '06

03 May '06

My little impromptu polls raised ~70 responses, results as follows: http://www.blakjak.net/node/495/results What are your thoughts on Xtra's decision to cancel its Usenet service? A smart move, handled appropriately. 3% (2 votes) A smart move, but badly implemented. 4% (3 votes) An understandable move, handled appropriately. 6% (4 votes) An understandable move, badly implemented. 40% (27 votes) A bad move, but the implementation was acceptable. 1% (1 vote) A bad move, and badly implemented. 45% (30 votes) Total votes: 67 http://www.blakjak.net/node/496/results Usenet: Usage Query. I use Usenet every day. 25% (18 votes) I use Usenet every few days. 13% (9 votes) I use Usenet once a week. 6% (4 votes) I use Usenet occaisionally. 11% (8 votes) I used to use it regularly, I don't anymore. 32% (23 votes) I'm aware of what Usenet is, but have never used it. 10% (7 votes) I've never heard of Usenet. 3% (2 votes) Total votes: 71 It seems that whilst opinion is divided as to whether cancelling their usenet service was a bad move or not, there is general agreement that the way in which this was actioned was 'bad' (tm). In fact it seems that only 7 votes from 67 - or a fraction over 10% - think that it was done well. Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Also interesting to see that certainly from the NZNOG community - and a few other smallish communites I circulated the poll to - Usenet still has some use. Just under half (~45%) of respondents could say they 'don't' use Usenet, with another ~39% of respondents saying they use it at least once a week. Fairly even spread. I'm not convinced that running the same survey in a forum accessed by non-network geeks would reveal the same results, though. Regards Mark.

1 0

Govt announcements
by David Farrar 03 May '06

03 May '06

I think the operational significance of the Govt's announcements today make it on-topic. Surprise announcement a few minutes ago: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25636 Government moves fast to improve Broadband New Zealanders can look forward to faster, better broadband Internet services thanks to the comprehensive telecommunications package announced today. Communications Minister David Cunliffe says the package is a vital part of the Government's drive to transform the economy and push New Zealand's broadband performance into the top quarter of the OECD. "Access to fast, competitively priced broadband Internet is vital for New Zealand to take full advantage of new technologies," Mr Cunliffe said. "This package will help ensure we catch up and keep up with other developed countries." Today's package includes: * Requiring the unbundling of the local loop and sub-loop copper-wire lines between telephone exchanges and homes and businesses, allowing other Internet Service Providers to compete fully with Telecom to provide faster, cheaper broadband. * Regulatory action such as information disclosure, accounting separation of Telecom's business operations and an enhanced Commerce Commission monitoring role in order to ensure improved competition. * Removing constraints on the existing regulated Unbundled Bitstream Service to ensure ISPs can offer better and cheaper broadband at upload speeds faster than 128kps. * Encouraging investment in alternative infrastructure such as fibre, wireless and satellite networks by measures including a review of public sector investment in telecommunications infrastructure to encourage a whole-of-government approach; reviewing whether Telecom's ability to reduce local prices solely in response to new competing infrastructure investment should be constrained; developing a rural package and expansion of the Digital Strategy Broadband Challenge fund. "We are continuing to look at whether additional measures are warranted, such as the structural separation of Telecom's retail and lines operations," Mr Cunliffe said. -- David Farrar e-mail: david(a)farrar.com mob: 027 447 0216, ph: 04 471 0956, fax: 04 471 0946 blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz msn: dpf666(a)hotmail.com, icq: 29964527, skype: dpfdpf Director, Curia Market Research http://www.curia.co.nz Vice-President, InternetNZ http://www.internetnz.net.nz Director, .nz Registry Services, http://www.nzrs.net.nz

11 11

Xtra and usenet
by Matthew Poole 02 May '06

02 May '06

I notice that there's been a dearth of comment in here about this. Does the NZNOG community not especially care, or has this just flown below the radar? -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

8 8

Re: [nznog] Xtra and usenet
by Blair Harrison 02 May '06

02 May '06

Mark Foster wrote: > > I am interested to see whether there is an opinion that regardless of the > 'how' this was done by Xtra, that this may infact have been a 'smart' idea > (from a business POV). One assumes you take into account the business > overheads of running a usenet server in the first place, and that there is > a noticable benefit to the company by cancelling the service... I'm interested to know which ISPs actually still run a Usenet server - and if so, how much bandwidth does it use and how many users does it have? Both raw numbers and as a percentage of the userbase... I'm guessing not very many.. Given the availability of services like GigaNews, Google Groups and the large bandwidth and support demands of running a Usenet server down under, is an ISP provided Usenet Server really something that needs to exist these days? And on another topic, Bonzi Buddy seems to think it's time for a beer. http://202.174.163.104/~blair/bonzibeer.jpg -Blair

3 2

Any Telecom mail admins here?
by Juha Saarinen 01 May '06

01 May '06

Getting SORBS-induced message bounces from Telecom's mail servers due to that erroneous dial-up listing. I'm probably not the only one. -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha www.computerworld.co.nz

3 4

Re: [nznog] Sorbs blocking addresses
by Matthew Sullivan 01 May '06

01 May '06

Craig Humphrey wrote: >Thanks Matthew. > > As an update because of the problems I have just caused new zonefiles for the DUHL zone to be created with only the test entry until the update is complete. (Why I didn't think of that before I'll never know). Regards, Mat

1 0

Re: [nznog] Sorbs blocking addresses
by Craig Box 01 May '06

01 May '06

> I'm assuming this means that all customers sending their own mail will > now have to use the xtra smtp servers? On that subject, I notice that etrn.iconz.co.nz has (probably recently) started using SORBS's dynamic DNS blacklist, and I've had reported e-mail complaints from Xtra and TelstraClear DSL customers today. Generally, when we find this happening, we contact the sysadmin on the remote end and advise them that they are likely blocking a whole set of e-mail they want to receive - harder when it's an ISP. With Xtra's Port 25 push, it could be that ICONZ have decided to have a flag day, forcing everyone wishing to communicate with them, running a (small business) mail server on a DSL connection, to now use their upstream ISP's mail server - losing the ability to diagnose mail routing after it disappears "into the black box". Is this the future? Craig

4 3

Sorbs blocking addresses
by Kerry 01 May '06

01 May '06

Hello, would seem that there is an issue here... We are now getting Xtra based customers with perminant mail delivery failures. Netblock: 210.55.172.0/23 (210.55.172.0-210.55.173.255) Record Created: Mon May 1 13:22:39 2006 GMT Record Updated: Mon May 1 13:22:39 2006 GMT Netblock: 210.55.170.0/23 (210.55.170.0-210.55.171.255) Record Created: Mon May 1 13:22:39 2006 GMT Record Updated: Mon May 1 13:22:39 2006 GMT Netblock: 210.55.174.0/24 (210.55.174.0-210.55.174.255) Record Created: Mon May 1 13:22:40 2006 GMT Record Updated: Mon May 1 13:22:40 2006 GMT $ nslookup 210.55.174.1 Server: . Address: 172.20.0.2 Name: 210-55-174-1.ipnets.xtra.co.nz Address: 210.55.174.1 I'm assuming this means that all customers sending their own mail will now have to use the xtra smtp servers? Cheers, kerry

1 0

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 01 May '06

01 May '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- OBJECT BELOW CREATED: aut-num: AS37999 as-name: NZRR-AS37999 descr: TVNZ descr: APE peering at '192.203.154.22' descr: see Citylink RT job #5301 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR import: from AS9560 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9560 announce AS37999 notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc(a)tvnz.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060502 source: NZRR --- OBJECT BELOW CREATED: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS37999 descr: Route set advertised to AS9560 by TVNZ - AS37999 members: 202.89.4.0/22^22-29, 202.36.33.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc(a)tvnz.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060502 source: NZRR

1 0

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 01 May '06

01 May '06

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has no king, president or formal membership. It consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. The group is intended to facilitate discussion among operators of networks in New Zealand, as described in the list's Acceptable Use Policy, which appears later in this posting. Conference Work is just beginning towards our annual conference for 2007. Other Meetings See http://auckland.thursdaynightcurry.com/ or http://wellington.thursdaynightcurry.com/ if you live in or near Auckland or Wellington. Operators' Contact List See http://www.usenet.net.nz/noc/ for operational contact details for most New Zealand ISP's. These are intended for use by other network operators, not by most customers. Internet Exchanges See http://www.nzix.net/ for details of exchanges in operation, and some information on others under construction. About This Mailing List This list has around 900 addresses subscribed. You may only post to the list from a subscribed address. A number of people subscribe addresses which do not receive email purely to allow posting from them. You may choose to receive postings as they come in, or just to receive daily "digests". See the bottom of the page http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog/ to change the form in which you receive postings. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by employees of Alcatel NZ Ltd, Citylink and Telecom. None of these organisations, nor any administrator, is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. 10. A person repeatedly breaching list etiquette shall receive warnings from the list administrator. A further breach after the second such warning within thirty days shall result in the offender being unsubscribed from the list. Other action may also be taken to block postings to the list by the offender. Any such unsubscription is to be immediately announced to the list. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/ Any message sent to the list will be archived and made available on the web automatically. Changes are not made to the archive on request, though the administrators remain happy to assist the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should any complaint be laid with that office. One way to search the archive is to use google and prefix your search With site:list.waikato.ac.nz . Subscribing to the List See http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog to subscribe. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

1 0

Steaming Event
by Webmaster 30 Apr '06

30 Apr '06

Operators may be interested to know that Radio NZ is running a large streaming event this Saturday 6 May. Music 101 (www.radionz.co.nz/music101) will be broadcast live from Bar Bodega in Wellington, and we'll be providing enhanced audio and video for the event as it also includes live music performances. We'll be offering the following Video: 56 K, 128K, 384K, 768K at all our servers (US and local) 2M will only be offered locally (customers whose ISPs do not peer will not havce access to this). And for Audio: 256K stereo (this is not a typo). This is addition to our usual 48 K stream. As is usual for these events the best performance for your customers can be obtained by peering with the servers located at the NZ exchanges. Limited NZ bound capacity will be available from the US server. Radio NZ will peer with anyone who has connectivity where we do - at APE, PNIX or WIX. We do not charge peers for access to our content. regards, Richard Hulse

2 1

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by3.5mbit upgrades?
by Simon Allard 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

> With this service limitation I can easily see how Quicksilver could > potentially be affected more than Ihug, Iconz, Xtra and Orcon. I would > guess that the average user profile on Quicksilver would tend towards > higher bandwidth usage whereas the typical Xtra (etc) user would > probably use less bandwidth. > > Unfortunately if this view I have is correct then I don't see an end to > problems unless either the average Quicksilver user profile changes -or- > Telecom changes the PVC limitation. I am curious to know what effect offering free national traffic has on the QSI DSL Network. In my experience offering free anything in this environment Telecom has created causes nothing by problems.

5 6

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbit upgrades?
by Regan Murphy 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

>>Just curious if any other ISPs are suffering from supposed "industry wide" >>throughput issues on the Telecom DSL network caused by telecom "upgrading too >>many customers to 3.5mbit without upgrading their network"? Well for me the problem started before any customers were upgraded and the problem has continued well through the upgrade - I now have an automatically upgraded 3.5Mbps connection and speeds are no better/worse. I have been suffering poor performance on QSI for quite some time now. My initial post to the helpdesk via their webpage was submitted on March 14 - I had been having problems for weeks before that though. This is the response I received: "I have spoken to the network staff and they let me know that a 2Mb connection can drop as low as 24Kbps especially at peak times as this is the nature of the UBS service that telecom offers." I was, at that time, on the 2Mbps service and I was having problems even running terminal sessions to my office (which is five hops away on a 10 Mbps connection via APE). Attempting a download resulted in speeds between 7KB/sec and 30KB/sec typically. This was only noticed during peak times - 6pm to 11pm. I tried a download at 5am one morning and it ran almost at full speed. A friend of mine recently changed from Orcon to QSI. He is on an exchange on the other side of AKL from me. On the Thursday (with Orcon) he was sustaining a 220KB/sec download from the linux mirror at citylink. On the Friday when he was changed over to QSI he couldn't get better than 80KB/sec from the same source and he has had speed problems since. He changed about 2-3 weeks ago. I initially assumed that the problems were due to oversubscription cause by the Telecom changes to the DSL (I figured they bought the changes in early) and this is the line I have been given talking to the QSI helpdesk. As changing providers is a painful (and expensive) process I've been reluctant to switch without knowing for sure where the problem lay. -- Regan

8 8

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by3.5mbit upgrades?
by Regan Murphy 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Yes, thanks to Mark for replying. This additional information makes me less likely to attribute the blame to Quicksilver for these problems. > 1) We currently have a project underway to increase our Private > Virtual Circuit (PVC) size from Telecom to manage future forecasted growth. > Telecom > controls the dimension of this PVC and constrains its size to 24kbit/s > per customer. >>Yet at the same time, customers of Ihug, Iconz, Orcon and Xtra are all able to get much higher rates... With this service limitation I can easily see how Quicksilver could potentially be affected more than Ihug, Iconz, Xtra and Orcon. I would guess that the average user profile on Quicksilver would tend towards higher bandwidth usage whereas the typical Xtra (etc) user would probably use less bandwidth. Unfortunately if this view I have is correct then I don't see an end to problems unless either the average Quicksilver user profile changes -or- Telecom changes the PVC limitation. -- Regan

1 0

QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbit upgrades?
by Matt Camp 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Hi all, Just curious if any other ISPs are suffering from supposed "industry wide" throughput issues on the Telecom DSL network caused by telecom "upgrading too many customers to 3.5mbit without upgrading their network"? Those are direct quotes from the Quicksilver Internet helpdesk person I just spoke to. This puzzles me, because in todays age of UBS, etc, I wasn't aware that such congestion could occur and affect everyone. I am especially surprised since I have had some people on ihug and xtra dsl (in one case not far from here, probably on the same exchange) run some tests, and they get 220kB/s, whereas I am currently getting... 7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 days. It also puzzles me since a friend in Wellington on Quicksilver is getting almost exactly the same crappy performance as I'm getting in Auckland... pretty big coincidence that two exchanges so far apart are giving exactly the same performance issues at the same time? It's been a while since I actually dealt with the internals of DSL from the ISP end, especially in the UBS-era, so I'm posting here to see if anyone has any info one way or the other. FYI, Quicksilver have recommended that I contact Telecom to complain, or maybe write them a letter. They also refuse to update their network status page (despite admitting that virtually all their dsl users are affected, and many are complaining) because it would "be detrimental, as it's not Quicksilvers problem". Does this actually sound real, or am I being just fobbed off by the helpdesker? Are any of you other ISPs having similar issues, and can anyone point me at any info direct from Telecom about the issue? - Matt Camp

9 10

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbitupgrades?
by Matt Camp 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Indeed, I've now heard from around 8 or 9 Quicksilver users from all over the country, all of whom are getting SERIOUSLY bad speeds anywhere near peak times. I'm talking getting down around 200-300kbit on average, sometimes down as low as 60kbit. But it's not just the throughput... latency is floating from 70ms up to around 4400ms... floating WILDLY... enough that it makes SSHing over the dsl connection very difficult. But mainly my point was that Quicksilver are trying to tell their users that it's and industry-wide problem affecting all ISPs, and there is nothing that Quicksilver can do to fix it (apart from sending endless screenshots of their bandwidth tester, which they are apparently forwarding to telecom). The fact that people can get good speeds using an xtra username, and crap using a qsi one on the same line indicates that this is NOT the per-exchange congestion problem seen in some areas (Mt Eden, for example) At this point in time I'd just like someone to admit that perhaps they don't have enough bandwidth, and just give us a realistic eta on when that can be resolved. Trying to pass the blame just pisses more people off. > > >> Remember.. your speed is NOT guaranteed, but if you are buying a 3.5M >> connection >> >> and can NEVER get 3.5M.... > > I think you guys are missing the point in his email. > > [snip] > whereas I am currently getting...7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 > days. > [/snip] > > That sounds like a serious problem rather than a "I never get 3.5M" > problem. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >

1 0

Re: [nznog] QSI / "industry" DSL problems caused by 3.5mbitupgrades?
by Simon Allard 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

> Remember.. your speed is NOT guaranteed, but if you are buying a 3.5M > connection > > and can NEVER get 3.5M.... I think you guys are missing the point in his email. [snip] whereas I am currently getting...7.5kB/s, and it's been that way for 3 days. [/snip] That sounds like a serious problem rather than a "I never get 3.5M" problem.

2 1