- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] Viruses originating from Xtra network
by Lesley Walker 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Thanks to all who have commented. I will try again when I have time to wait out the infinite hold, and I may try that "Complex" number. I do understand about the need for the IVR to do the right thing for the company's needs, it just bugs the hell out of me that it keeps trying to send me to a sales dude when I'm trying to reach support people. I'm prepared for coping with call centre helpdesk people, if only I can get through to them. I know I sent them enough information to track the user when I emailed them, but what I don't know is whether anyone is paying any attention to the email. A response with a trouble ticket number would be nice, but even an auto-responder would let me know for sure that the mail got through. In the absence of a bounce, I would expect at least an auto-response. Mark Foster wrote: >Noone you talk to over the telephone is going to give you real time >support on a virus infection issue. Of course not. All I want them to do is log a trouble ticket and send it to someone who can (a) understand it, and (b) do something about it. >Their security team do deal with all valid emails to abuse@ even if they >don't acknowledge them directly. Also please bear in mind that nomatter >what ISP is involved, all customers need time to be warned, and get fixed, >before theyll have their accounts nuked. Its a tough call to take someone >off the internet when their only hope is software that needs to be >downloaded _from_ the internet... Sure. But someone who is sufficiently Internet-enabled to have Jetstream probably either has a clue or knows somebody who does, and I would hope that they just need to to be told about it. >Disclaimer: I don't represent Xtra or Telecom or anyone else except yours >truly. This is based on my experiences as an Xtra customer and someone who >has reported virus to Xtra Abuse Team many times! Accepted. >PS: The 'Dial 0' trick is a cop out. With a company as big as Xtra, you >can't realistically expect them to leave a Dial 0 option in there _and >then_ expect to keep call durations down - you wont get the answer you >want from a receptionist, will you? No, but if the IVR doesn't provide appropriate options, I expect a receptionist to be able to put me through to somebody appropriate. They're supposed to know who does what in their organisation. > If their support staff are busy, >theyre busy. Sit on hold, try again later, or email them. (And hope that >they realise their Queues are busy (and they will, theres enough software >there tracking their Queue stats) and modify staffing levels as a result >(also standard callcentre practise.) I hope I don't have to keep waiting while they go out and hire more staff. That'd be a pretty long call! :-) (The batteries in my phone woulf go flat) Thanks again. Lesley.

1 0

Broadband connectivity
by Andy Linton 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

While we debate the merits (?) of DSL connectivity and how to handle modem pools here's an example of a service available in Japan. The last couple of pictures tell the story! > Got my 100Mb fiber optic installed yesterday...the connection is > humming. I found the whole process very interesting and think that it > is just amazing. The actual fiber is thinner than a human hair and its > just fantastic. > free install, free for two months, unlimited traffic and no more than > $100 NZD/month. > > I am one happy man : ) > > http://www.jesse-taylor.com/new/misc_images/100mb_install/index.htm

8 8

APRICOT 2005 in Kyoto, Japan
by Philip Smith 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Hi everyone, This is to let you know that the registration for APRICOT 2005 in Kyoto, Japan, from 18th to 25th February 2005 is now open. APRICOT is the Asia Pacific region's Internet operations and technology conference, and consists of workshops, tutorials, conference, as well as the 6 monthly APNIC meeting. Full information about APRICOT 2005 can be had at www.2005.apricot.net. Registration and accommodation information is at: www.2005.apricot.net/registration.html www.2005.apricot.net/accommodation.html You are encouraged to register as soon as possible as the early bird registration discount finishes on the 12th of January. Hope to see you in Kyoto early next year! philip --

1 0

Dialup / Radius
by Blair Harrison 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hi People, After all the hubbub of DSL activity of late, has anyone been having any issues with Dialup? If you are, are your upstream dialup providers putting priority into solving any dialup issues? I've talked to a few people and it seems that Telecom's IPNet dialup service seems to suffer missing RADIUS Stop records and that this activity seems to have been going on for a long time.. Has anyone ever managed to get an answer out of Telecom as to why this occurs? I'm also wondering how many missing records we're talking about here, does anyone have any actual numbers? Has it increased over the last couple of months? Missing RADIUS records seem to have been just a "fact of life" for most ISPs I know of for some time now, but I'm just wondering to what extent this occurs elsewhere.. Lately we've been noticing a somewhat increased number of missing stop records- to the point that some of our RADIUS-dependant services are suffering a few "errors" .. requiring some extra "fixes" to get around the issue.. One would think that being such a core service, every RADIUS issue ever concieved should have been eliminated years ago.. Obviously some of our national providers think otherwise.. Comments? Please feel free to reply to me offlist. Regards, Blair Harrison Systems Administrator WISE Net | http://wise.net.nz

5 5

[Fwd: IOS and Growing BGP tables]
by Andy Linton 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

I've not seen this discussed on nznog. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:39:01 +1000 From: David J. Hughes <bambi(a)Hughes.com.au> To: Oz-ISP Mailing list <aussie-isp(a)aussie.net>, isp-australia(a)isp-australia.com Subject: [Oz-ISP] IOS and Growing BGP tables Hi, I'm posting this in an attempt to raise a bit of support. I've been arguing for a feature enhancement for IOS that will prolong the life of most Cisco routers that take a full BGP table. The growth of the table is causing concern for many major providers who can see the RAM on their lower end 7200's running out in the near future. Their default solution is not to upgrade the boxes, but to filter out the /24 advertisements. However, for many years in Australia, a /24 was the normal allocation. If they blindly filter out all the /24's then lots of networks in Australia (and other countries) will become unreachable. The proposed features allows you to filter a prefix if there is a less specific prefix already in your table (with various tuneable knobs with respect to next hop etc). Some guys at Cisco have taken this on and filed a bug / feature request for this. The more people that open a TAC case and have it linked to this bug ID the higher the priority of this request will become. It's being supported on the Cisco-NSP mailing list but I thought it worth "rattling the cage" on these lists as well. The more voices the better. The Cisco Bug ID is "CSCsa45474 : Ability to block overlapping BGP prefixes from being installed in RIB". Some history of the discussions is included below. If you have a TAC account and are so inclined, please open a new case and ask the engineer to link it to this bug ID. Thanks Bambi ... Begin forwarded message: > From: David J. Hughes <bambi(a)Hughes.com.au> > Date: 1 December 2004 10:26:18 AM > To: 'cisco-nsp' <cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Growing BGP tables > > > I hope that most people on this list would open a case to try to get a > feature like this included in upcoming IOS releases. It's about the > only thing that will extend the life of your "RAM limited" routers > without breaking connectivity to historically legitimate /24 > allocations. > > > David > ... > > > On 01/12/2004, at 9:40 AM, Rodney Dunn wrote: > >> For those that have the ability to open a TAC case and they think >> this is something they could use, open a case and have the TAC >> engineer attach the case to this bug: >> >> CSCsa45474 >> Externally found enhancement defect: New (N) >> Ability to block overlapping BGP prefixes from being installed in RIB > ------ Begin forwarded message: Anything that reduces the consumption of RIB and FIB resources as a result of de-aggregation etc would be a very welcome step in the right direction. Thanks for looking into this Rodney. David ... On 24/11/2004, at 3:33 AM, Rodney Dunn wrote: > My point was that you can't do it with BGP > because you don't have a way to request a > re-advertisement from a peer when the > less specific goes away. > > There is a possiblity we could keep the > more specifics out of the RIB which would > save memory there and in the FIB. > > That being said the best that can > be done currently appears to block > the routes from going in the RIB. > We are looking to see how complex that > would be to do. > > Rodney > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Brian Feeny wrote: >> >> >> I like this, basically all your doing is getting rid of the redundant >> information which serves no purpose other than taking up space in the >> RIB/FIB anyways. And if someone should further deaggregate or make a >> change, then the new update is going to run its algorithm against the >> current RIB all over again. >> >> >> On Nov 22, 2004, at 4:16 PM, David J. Hughes wrote: >> >>> >>> Hey Rodney, >>> >>> How about ... >>> >>> for each prefix received in update >>> for each more specific prefix in RIB >>> if RIB prefix ge /24 and same next hop as update prefix >>> drop RIB prefix >>> if update prefix ge /24 >>> for each less specific prefix in RIB >>> if RIB next hop same as update next hop >>> drop update prefix >>> >>> something like that would filter during the update and wouldn't >>> require another full copy of the table to be held. I'm sure you >>> guys could come up with something more efficient but the basic idea >>> would work wouldn't it? >>> >>> >>> David >>> ... ---- email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to majordomo(a)aussie.net to be removed.

1 0

Re: Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC
by John Tran 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hello all, This is a follow up to my previous email. Assignments within the blocks listed below have been restored to the public APNIC Whois Database. If you wish to make any of these assignments private or if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact APNIC helpdesk at <helpdesk(a)apnic.net> or phone +61-7-3858-3180. Kind regards, Son > > > 5) Next steps > > > ------------- > > > Under the database privacy policy, all non-portable assignments and > > > non-portable sub-allocations that have not been specifically marked as > > > public have now been made private. However, because some allocations > > > and assignments within certain ranges appear to have been considered > > > 'portable' by default from earlier practices in New Zealand, APNIC > > > will restore the affected ranges from private to public. The ranges > > > in question are: > > > - 202.27.0./16 > > > - 202.36.0.0/16 > > > - 202.37.0.0/16 > > > - 202.49.0.0/16, and > > > - 202.50.0.0/16 > > > > > > Anyone holding addresses from these ranges that they wish to be made > > > private, should contact APNIC helpdesk. The update will be done this > > > week.

1 0

Re: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC (fwd)
by John Tran 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Dear Mathew, >*SNIP* a really interesting e-mail > >First, John, that was most enlightening. Thanks. > I am very pleased to read that it was helpful. Thanks. >One point that was raised in this discussion is that, for many NZ (and >other pacific-based) organisations, a /21 is a huge requirement. A lot >of companies can justify a /24, maybe even a /23, or a /22 at a stretch, >but a /21 is just out of the realms of possibility, probably ever. There will always be a balance between aggregation in the routing table and conservation. Not everyone can have portable address space. However as the years have progressed the trend in the community has been to agree to smaller sized initial allocations, recognising that there are those out there with smaller requirements. To qualify for a /21 allocation an organisation needs to demonstrate that they need /23 immediately and /22 in 12 months time. By "allocation" I mean that the organisation has customers that they wish to assign non-portable address space to. If an organisation does not qualify under this policy and is multi-homed or about to be multi-homed, they can apply for an address assignment under the "Small Multi-homing policy". By "assignment" I mean that they will use the address space on their own network and it will not be delegated to customers. There is no minimum or maximum size under this policy. You can find more information on both at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html >APNIC policies seem to be more biased towards the A than the P, even >with >the change from /20 to /21. I do recognise what you are saying. Indeed APNIC has appointed 'liaison officers' for both the Pacific and for South Asia to try to ensure that needs and voices are heard. At the same time there are many ISPs or organisations throughout the entire region with smaller requirements , and perhaps you are observing that it is the large guys who tend to get involved. You need only think of Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia...... there are many others of course. >... Obviously a country could set up an NIR to >do >smaller allocations, but a lot of the little islands out there are >unlikely to have the infrastructure to run their own NIR with any kind >of >reliability. Not to mention that their sub-allocation requirements >wouldn't justify the resources and expense. The best place to raise these concerns are on the Policy SIG mailing list. I would recommend that you subscribe. More information is at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists >With this in mind, is there anything that can be done to create >something >like a sub-RIR under APNIC to better serve the needs of the large number The only sub-structures currently within the membership structure are the NIRs and LIRs. NIRs are obligated to follow the policies of APNIC, so that the minimum size will be the same. However they are free to develop some policies that are specific to local conditions. >can >suggest policy, but the actual voting is weighted towards large In policy making there is no voting. (In determining fee structures there is as this is deemed a membership issue). The principle observed is 'consensus'. This means that the majority has to agree. One hand is raised for each person in the room and we try to include those that are participating remotely. It is not necessary for you to turn up to have a voice. Aside from the remote participation facilities (jabber, webcast) there are also periods before (one month) and after (2 months) the meeting where policies are sent to the mailing lists for further comment. The aim of all this is to try to maximise the input across the region, recognising that not everyone can make it to the meeting or can comment at the appropriate time. I hope this helps. Kind regards Son

1 0

Blackholing rfc1918 queries
by Simon Lyall 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Does anyone know the current correct way to blackhole queries for rfc1918 reverses using Bind9? I had a look at as112.net (and 192.0.32.18/31) and googled a bit but I can't seem to find anything. I'm sure somebody was going on about it a year or so back and encouraging everybody to but a certain config in. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

2 1

Re: [nznog] makana.co.nz spam ?
by Mark Foster 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Their Pri NS appears to have IP 202.27.187.82, which based on traceroute is carried via Telstraclear to Snap. Further, if you whois you'll see that its clearly Snap aka Netaccess Christchurch. You may like to try abuse(a)snap.net.nz as a guess. But i've not heard of them before, if it helps. Mark. On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:27:08 +1300, Simon Byrnand <simon(a)igrin.co.nz> wrote : > Hi All, > > Has anyone else receved spam from "Makana Confections" <sales(a)makana.co.nz> > recently ? (Or in the past) > *snipped*

1 0

makana.co.nz spam ?
by Simon Byrnand 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Hi All, Has anyone else receved spam from "Makana Confections" <sales(a)makana.co.nz> recently ? (Or in the past) They seem to be at it again, sending unsolicited "promotions" of their products despite previous complaints. Back in April this year they spammed hundreds of our customers (including me personally) with almost identical material to this latest batch, and at the time I forwared abuse complaints to the only relevant email addresses I could find, including soa(a)saraden.co.nz, postmaster(a)saraden.co.nz and abuse(a)saraden.co.nz who going by domainz records appear to be their webhost. At no time did I ever receive any response. Thanks to the wonders of "private" APNIC entries for NZGATE ranges where the address block that the sending mail server resides, its hard to find much more information ;-) (Hopefully that will change if APNIC goes ahead with making the private entries public again) Anybody heard of these guys ? Sent complaints to them before ? Regards, Simon Byrnand iGRIN Internet

1 0

Re: SPF and mail forwarding (was Re: [nznog] Sendmail Question)
by Ewen McNeill 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

In message <20041128083138.GB27487(a)walnut.gen.nz>, Richard Hector writes: >On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:20:03PM +1300, Ewen McNeill wrote: >> usera(a)ispa was one address so subscribed. Unfortunately usera(a)ispa >> actually forwards mail to userb(a)ispb, without rewriting the envelope >> from address -- [bounces because SPF check failed at ispb MX] > >Perhaps I'm a little confused, but if usera is rejecting mail from >servers that he has arranged to forward him mail, that's his own silly >fault? usera doesn't run the mail servers at ispb (or ispa for that matter). It is ispb's mail servers that are doing the SPF check, and rejecting the message, because it's been forwarded in a way that is not compliant with SPF. Other than complaining to ispb -- and they probably wouldn't even know to do so -- usera/userb can do little to influence the message being accepted or rejected at ispb. Viz: 1. spfprotecteddomain MX -> ispa MX: mail from: user(a)spfprotecteddomain rcpt to: usera(a)ispa Result: message accepted (passes SPF check if one is done) 2. ispa configuration for usera says "forward to userb(a)ispb" 3. ispa MX -> ispb MX: mail from: user(a)spfprotecteddomain rcpt to: userb(a)ispb Result: SPF check fails because ispa MX is not in the SPF from list, and message is rejected (and bounced by ispa MX back to user(a)spfprotecteddomain). SPF's answer to this is that mail servers should rewrite the from address -- complete with lots of magic about how it should be done (still being debated). Rewriting it to be "mail from: usera(a)isap" would work just about as well in practice in most situations (bounces go to the "wrong" place, but bounces are largely broken by all the abuse of them going on anyway). This is what procmail and some other things do. FWIW, this is not a theoritical situation. This is really happening right now. And I ended up relaxing some of my SPF statements as a "work around". As I said in the beginning I'd like to see more ISPs that offer "mail forwarding" services to their customers forward that mail in a way that won't cause SPF rejections further down the track. Like it or not SPF is being implemented, and trying to ignore it will not stop your customers mail being bounced. Ewen

3 2

NZNOG '05 Progress and Logo
by Jamie Curtis 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Hi all, Preparation for the NZNOG conference is progressing well with the organising committee working hard on pinning down the final details of the programme. We are currently aiming to open registrations, along with a new look website, sometime next week. One critical component still missing is a logo for this years conference. If there are any of you who feel like getting creative, please feel free to submit logos to me via e-mail. If your logo is chosen as the best, you can expect much kudos at the bar, possibly along with a few free drinks ! As we need the page ready ASAP, logos will need to be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than first thing Monday. Last years logo can be found on the old site: http://www.nznog.org/2004/ Cheers Jamie ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Curtis office: G.1.01 WAND Group, Dept of Computer Science phone: +64 7 838 4136 University of Waikato, mobile: +64 21 392 102 Hamilton, fax: +64 7 858 5095 New Zealand email: jamie(a)wand.net.nz -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC
by John Tran 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hello all, First, as a general note, it is worth mentioning that there are several staff at the APNIC Secretariat who keenly follow the discussions on NZNOG. Currently, we have been closely following the discussion on the effects of implementing the 'whois privacy' policy on address ranges in use in New Zealand. This email is intended to clarify some of the issues raised, to provide explanations, and to try to identify a path forward. As there have been quite a lot of issues raised, I apologise in advance for the length of this reply. 1) Creating and changing policies --------------------------------- It is not necessary to be a member of APNIC to be involved in the policy making process. Anyone can propose policy changes and take part in the policy discussions. Also, you dont have to attend the meetings to take part. APNIC provides facilities for people not present to take part in discussions while the meetings are actually taking place. In addition, everyone is welcome to join the APNIC mailing lists where policies are proposed and discussed. The main list used to discuss the management of Internet resources is the Policy Special Interest Group (SIG) mailing list. A description of the Policy SIG is available at: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/policy.html Details of how to subscribe to this and other APNIC mailing lists is available at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/ It is highly recommended that anyone holding resources does subscribe to this list (and others) so that they can voice their opinions and give feedback when policies are circulated for comment. You can also find a list of active policies under discussion at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/ Feedback and participation in developing policies from the NZ community is very much appreciated. 2) Membership fees and criteria for portable allocations and assignments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fees for membership can be found here: http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html The criteria for a minium allocation (/21*) of portable address space are as follows: - the applicant must have used a /23 from their upstream provider or demonstrate an immediate need for a /23; - the applicant must have complied with applicable policies in managing all address space previously allocated to it; - the applicant must demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and commit to renumber from previously deployed space into the new address space within one year. [* it is worth noting that the size of the minimum allocation and the criteria for obtaining an allocation were recently lowered from a /20 to a /21 as a result of input and consensus from the community] More information is here: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.3 If you wish to obtain a portable assignment of address space as a multihomed organisation you can apply under the small multi-homing assignment policy. The criteria are: - the requestor must be currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multihome within one month; and - agree to renumber out of previously assigned address space. The small multi-homing assignments are available to both members and non-members. 3) National Internet Registries (NIRs) -------------------------------------- APNIC recognises NIRs which operate within certain economies. Prospective NIRs must meet specific criteria and adopt the operational policies detailed in: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/nir-criteria.html and http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/operational-policies-nirs.html 4) Whois database privacy policy -------------------------------------- Details of and the motivations for this policy are documented at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-007-v001.html In summary, the policy means that all non-portable assignments and non-portable sub-allocations will be private by default. Details of these resources remain registered in the whois database but are just not visible to the public. They can be made visible by the custodian of the allocation object through MyAPNIC, to which all APNIC members have access. 5) Next steps ------------- Under the database privacy policy, all non-portable assignments and non-portable sub-allocations that have not been specifically marked as public have now been made private. However, because some allocations and assignments within certain ranges appear to have been considered 'portable' by default from earlier practices in New Zealand, APNIC will restore the affected ranges from private to public. The ranges in question are: - 202.27.0./16 - 202.36.0.0/16 - 202.37.0.0/16 - 202.49.0.0/16, and - 202.50.0.0/16 Anyone holding addresses from these ranges that they wish to be made private, should contact APNIC helpdesk. The update will be done this week. 6) NZTelecom custodianship -------------------------- In regard to the wider issue of NZTelecom as a custodian of the ranges listed above, APNIC operated in good faith, trying to promote aggregation and provide a clearer framework for the custodianship of address space in New Zealand. That said, clearly there are now major concerns being expressed on this mailing list concerning portability of blocks within these ranges. The APNIC Secretariat will examine the records within these ranges and will work with NZTelecom, affected parties, and the community to find an appropriate solution. The solution will not happen overnight but the process is beginning immediately. Of course, APNIC will keep the New Zealand community fully up to date on the progress of the discussions. The APNIC Secretariat would be happy to assist anyone with concerns. If you want to discuss your concerns with us, please call the helpdesk on +61-7-3858-3188 or send email to <helpdesk(a)apnic.net>. 7) The past and the future -------------------------- Clearly, much of this stems back to a time when the framework for allocating and assigning resources was much less defined than it is today. The RIRs, with the community, are trying to provide a responsible framework for managing resources, both historical and existing resources. Some of you may be aware of the ERX transfer project in which resources in use in this region were previously registered in the ARIN database and are now being transferred to the APNIC database and are now managed by APNIC. More information about this project is available at: http://www.apnic.net/db/erx/ Many other steps are being taken. One such example is the policy recently implemented to support transfers of historical address space: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-006-v001.html Others recently approved by the community, but yet to be implemented are: * Recovery of unused address space: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-017-v001.html * Protecting historical records in the whois database: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html I would strongly urge anyone who is a custodian of Internet resources to read these policies and to contact APNIC if they have any queries. Finally it is worth mentioning that four APNIC staff members will be at the forthcoming NZNOG meeting, and will be happy to meet with people and to provide a forum for discussing these issues. Regards Son ____________________________________________________________________ Resources Services Manager <Son(a)apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 email: helpdesk(a)apnic.net Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster(a)apnic.net> _____________________________________________________________________

3 3

Citynet, TelstraClear, Telecom, Orcon
by Joshua Brady 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Could someone from Citynet, TelstraClear, Telecom, Orcon please contact me off-list please. Regards, Joshua Brady

1 0

IPv6 transit in .nz
by Lincoln Reid 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi, Is anyone here able to offer international IPv6 transit in New Zealand currently? Ultimately I would like to start publishing AAAA records for some of our infrastructure, which means there is a little more pressure on to provide connectivity more compelling than through a tunnel broker eg. ~500ms, sometimes lossy, sometimes entirely broken. My experience as an end user through a tunnel broker accessing sites with AAAA records like www.apnic.net or www.isc.org is that the performance is often bad enough for me to kill my IPv6 connectivity to maintain sanity. Our requirements are very modest, even a shared 512 kbit is probably fine as long as it works most of the time. If anyone has any pointers get in touch. Cheers, -- Lincoln Reid Systems Engineer LinuxNet - AS18119 lincoln(a)linuxnet.co.nz Phone: +64 4 939 2200 Fax: +64 4 939 2201

1 0

Outage Notifications in a standardised format
by Jamie Baddeley 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi people, I'm looking the various ways and means I get notified of early warnings/network outages, and I'm thinking that there's got to be a better way. This better way would probably involve an agreed information format (e.g XML, RSS etc) between all parties. Even just a standard email template. I'd be keen to herd a working group to come up with a standard mechanism for telling each other that the smoke has leaked out (or is about to), and that the rubber band fell off. Add some funkiness, and letting customers know would be so much easier. As usual, however, the usefulness of this is proportional to the number of network operators who agree to the standard...This is an open request to TelstraClear and Telecom - are you interested in working together on this? Can I have a show of hands from those in the NOG who'd be keen to work together to draft a standardised way of Outage Reporting. If we can get enough people together, and do some planning between now and February, then doing a BOF at the conference in February would be the way to go. And by all means, if such a standard already exists, then please point me in the direction of it.. Hands up? jamie --

1 0

Request for historical info
by Barry Murphy 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

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

1 1

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

30 Nov '04

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

1 0

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has no king, president or formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. Conference Our next annual conference is to be hosted by the WAND group in Hamilton on February 2nd to 4th, 2005. That's just over three months away. See http://www.nznog.org/ for more information, including a list of confirmed presenters which keeps growing. We've also confirmed that APNIC are to offer a day of "Internet Resource Management Essentials" training on Wednesday, 2nd February. Look for registration to open next week. Other Meetings See http://auckland.thursdaynightcurry.com/ or http://wellington.thursdaynightcurry.com/ if you live in or near Auckland or Wellington. Operators' Contact List See http://www.usenet.net.nz/noc/ for operational contact details for most New Zealand ISP's. These are intended for use by other network operators, not by most customers. Internet Exchanges See http://www.nzix.net.nz/ for details of the Auckland, Palmerston North and Wellington exchanges, and some information on others under construction. About This Mailing List This list has around 750 addresses subscribed. You may only post to the list from a subscribed address. A number of people subscribe addresses which do not receive email purely to allow posting from them. You may choose to receive postings as they come in, or just to receive daily "digests". See the bottom of the page http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog/ to change the form in which you receive postings. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by employees of Alcatel NZ Ltd, Citylink and Telecom. None of these organisations, nor any administrator, is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. 10. A person repeatedly breaching list etiquette shall receive warnings from the list administrator. A further breach after the second such warning within thirty days shall result in the offender being unsubscribed from the list. Other action may also be taken to block postings to the list by the offender. Any such unsubscription is to be immediately announced to the list. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/ Any message sent to the list will be archived and made available on the web automatically. Changes are not made to the archive on request, though the administrators remain happy to assist the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should any complaint be laid with that office. One way to search the archive is to use google and prefix your search with site:list.waikato.ac.nz . Subscribing to the List See http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog to subscribe. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

29 Nov '04

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

2 1

Prefix update for Maxnet
by Alastair Johnson 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

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

1 0

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

29 Nov '04

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

1 0

Hector Protector
by Peter Macaulay 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

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

7 8

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

29 Nov '04

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

3 2

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

28 Nov '04

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

4 4