- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

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