- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Richard Parkinson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

Thanks Dan. There are one or two ISP's and their administrators out there that have been VERY generous, sympathetic and helpful towards Sahil & Net4U and yet more who have been giving Net4U advise, and telling him off when needed :). As I say, Net4U are "growing up" slowly, but like me, are bound to make mistakes along the way. I enjoy helping others where help is needed, but sometimes this pisses other people off, especially those that don't think that particular person or business deserves to be helped or to get ahead, and I'm not just talking about Net4U. Anyway, rest assured, he has just had a verbal assault from me for yet again, not thinking carefully and using common sense before acting. ie sending Spam etc Thanks for your patience and understanding everyone. He wont be doing that again. :) Cheers, Richard. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Clark [mailto:dan(a)scarfies.net] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 4:04 p.m. To: Richard Parkinson; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] APE Peering I have to agree with Richard here, the problem is the young man who set this particular ISP up has historicly been ignorant as to some of the ethical rules and unwritten policy's of the internet community. We all make mistakes and maybe he just needs a little guidance and support from fellow ISP's who, will no doubt have started from penny's in the early days themselves. Regards Dan Clark Network Manager Scarfies.Net Ltd ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard <mailto:Richard(a)sigel.co.nz> Parkinson To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: RE: [nznog] APE Peering We have made a brief report which is not for public viewing, but which has identified a small number of issues on the Net4U network (which were quickly rectified) that were as a result of previous employees. We found nothing that was causing deliberate loss of bandwidth to any other party. We did not fully complete the work due to budget restraints, however we did cover most of the important aspects. Some of our recommendations have been implemented, and sadly others have not been done, but Net4U are operating somewhat better than they were. We no longer oversee the operation of Net4U, but have kept in touch with them, and assist with other matters both business related and technical, and feel Net4U & Sahil are slowly "growing up" so to speak, but I expect mystiques will still be made from time to time. None of us are perfect. I can assure you the bandwidth offered by Net4U in that "distributed" email is legitimate, and I should warn you that continued accusations and alligations are a direct attack against me and my company, which left Net4U operating legally and above board, and there is no justification for this blatant deformation. I must say that I also disagree with the method of advertising chosen. Had I been consulted I would have recommended against it, but in saying that, I welcome email in my inbox that relates directly to my line of business and would rather receive such email as opposed to the ones about increasing the size of certain body parts or some other "amazing offer" which we see all to often of late, depending on how good your mail filters are. It doesn't take much for everyone to see that some of you are making an issue simply because it's Sahil and Net4U, and because you were a reject at school who was picked on and bullied, and now have a psychological disorder resulting in you playing out the role of your boyhood deamon from school, dishing out what you received. Without naming anyone, I would also like to point out that there are those of you on this list making such accusations who are the last people to do so, or should we raise the matter of a VAST amount of bandwidth stolen from Telecom for a number of months, by a much larger ISP than Net4U, who even taught another ISP's network administrator how to do it only days before Telecom figured it all out... or perhaps I could send the list a copy of some forged court documents? To these few people I say, I suggest you stop stirring the pot and leave the past alone, or you will get more than just a little of it on you. I think we should all take a good look at ourselves, and the motivation behind the pettiness that from time to time, makes me wonder just how many children play on this list, and how many people are here to get work/business done. Lets just get on with our work please everyone. Cheers, Richard Parkinson (Director) Sigel Data Systems Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: Craig Whitmore [mailto:lennon(a)orcon.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 2:13 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; Steve Phillips Subject: Re: [nznog] APE Peering If anyone had forgotten, where is the "Report" from Sigel Systems about Net4u's runnings over the last 3 months. I believe the impartial 3rd party was hired as one of net4u's staff a very short while after (so couldn't be impartial) Thanks Craig > >> >[snippage] > > > We can deliver using several methods as I've outlined above and can also > > > take care of transporting your existing I.P. Address ranges supplied to > > > you by your current provider to us. > > That would be a neat trick. Almost worth taking him up on that just to > watch him fail dismally. _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _____ _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

APE Peering
by Sahil Gupta - NET4U LIMITED 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

Hi, This announcement is more centered towards Network Administrators at ISP's that are connected to the APE. Net4U (www.net4u.co.nz) connected to the APE since May 2003 and since then have been peering with a number of ISP's around the country. We are currently looking for more ISP's to peer with and so if you feel that we could have a domestic peering arrangement between your ISP and Net4U, please get back to me off-list as we would be more than happy to do so. Regards, Sahil Gupta Senior Account Manager NET4U LIMITED Phone: 0508-263-848 Fax: 07-8582659 Mobile: 029-366-6375

7 6

APE Peering
by Richard Patterson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

1 0

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Richard Parkinson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

We have made a brief report which is not for public viewing, but which has identified a small number of issues on the Net4U network (which were quickly rectified) that were as a result of previous employees. We found nothing that was causing deliberate loss of bandwidth to any other party. We did not fully complete the work due to budget restraints, however we did cover most of the important aspects. Some of our recommendations have been implemented, and sadly others have not been done, but Net4U are operating somewhat better than they were. We no longer oversee the operation of Net4U, but have kept in touch with them, and assist with other matters both business related and technical, and feel Net4U & Sahil are slowly "growing up" so to speak, but I expect mystiques will still be made from time to time. None of us are perfect. I can assure you the bandwidth offered by Net4U in that "distributed" email is legitimate, and I should warn you that continued accusations and alligations are a direct attack against me and my company, which left Net4U operating legally and above board, and there is no justification for this blatant deformation. I must say that I also disagree with the method of advertising chosen. Had I been consulted I would have recommended against it, but in saying that, I welcome email in my inbox that relates directly to my line of business and would rather receive such email as opposed to the ones about increasing the size of certain body parts or some other "amazing offer" which we see all to often of late, depending on how good your mail filters are. It doesn't take much for everyone to see that some of you are making an issue simply because it's Sahil and Net4U, and because you were a reject at school who was picked on and bullied, and now have a psychological disorder resulting in you playing out the role of your boyhood deamon from school, dishing out what you received. Without naming anyone, I would also like to point out that there are those of you on this list making such accusations who are the last people to do so, or should we raise the matter of a VAST amount of bandwidth stolen from Telecom for a number of months, by a much larger ISP than Net4U, who even taught another ISP's network administrator how to do it only days before Telecom figured it all out... or perhaps I could send the list a copy of some forged court documents? To these few people I say, I suggest you stop stirring the pot and leave the past alone, or you will get more than just a little of it on you. I think we should all take a good look at ourselves, and the motivation behind the pettiness that from time to time, makes me wonder just how many children play on this list, and how many people are here to get work/business done. Lets just get on with our work please everyone. Cheers, Richard Parkinson (Director) Sigel Data Systems Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: Craig Whitmore [mailto:lennon(a)orcon.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 2:13 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; Steve Phillips Subject: Re: [nznog] APE Peering If anyone had forgotten, where is the "Report" from Sigel Systems about Net4u's runnings over the last 3 months. I believe the impartial 3rd party was hired as one of net4u's staff a very short while after (so couldn't be impartial) Thanks Craig > >> >[snippage] > > > We can deliver using several methods as I've outlined above and can also > > > take care of transporting your existing I.P. Address ranges supplied to > > > you by your current provider to us. > > That would be a neat trick. Almost worth taking him up on that just to > watch him fail dismally. _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

6 5

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Simon Byrnand 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

At 15:35 3/07/03 +1200, Richard Parkinson wrote: >I must say that I also disagree with the method of advertising chosen. Had >I been consulted I would have recommended against it, but in saying that, >I welcome email in my inbox that relates directly to my line of business >and would rather receive such email as opposed to the ones about >increasing the size of certain body parts or some other "amazing offer" >which we see all to often of late, depending on how good your mail filters >are. > Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me, or I suspect most members of the list. Spam is Spam whether its trying to sell me Viagra or Bandwidth. Anybody that received that mailout (fortunately I didn't) who had no previous business dealings with Net4U could be legitimately annoyed by it. The sample "message" appeared to be addressed to soa@ which suggests it might have been taken from domain or APNIC contact details. >It doesn't take much for everyone to see that some of you are making an >issue simply because it's Sahil and Net4U, and because you were a reject >at school who was picked on and bullied, and now have a psychological >disorder resulting in you playing out the role of your boyhood deamon from >school, dishing out what you received. > Pot, Kettle, Black ? Regards, Simon

2 1

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Richard Parkinson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

I did say disagree with the "spam" method used. I agree this thread is a waste of time and should die. -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Smith [mailto:gordon(a)morenet.net.nz] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 3:47 p.m. To: Richard Parkinson; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] APE Peering Richard, Was there any point to that message at all? Firstly, spam is spam, not "distributed" email. It is unsolicited commercial email, which this was. Secondly, I think you'll find that ANY provider that has previously behaved as poorly would attract a similar response. I really don't care if they are mystical or deformed, this is a breach of what is generally accepted as "acceptable conduct". Perhaps this thread should die - it has very little to do with network operations. Gordon Smith CCNA Network Operations Manager MoreNet Ltd PGP Fingerprint: 4B12 FBE4 784A 3294 6637 4587 AB6F C893 AB2C 952C

1 0

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Richard Parkinson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

And I knew this as soon as I saw it hit the list. Cheers -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Poole [mailto:lists(a)p00le.net] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 3:45 p.m. To: Richard Parkinson Cc: NZNOG Subject: RE: [nznog] APE Peering Getting very OT here, but that word is EXCEPT! On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Richard Parkinson wrote: > Accept for a spelling error or two. :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Saarinen [ mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 3:44 p.m. > Cc: NZNOG > Subject: RE: [nznog] APE Peering > > > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Richard Parkinson wrote: > > > I can assure you the bandwidth offered by Net4U in that "distributed" > > email is legitimate, and I should warn you that continued accusations > > and alligations are a direct attack against me and my company, which > > left Net4U operating legally and above board, and there is no > > justification for this blatant deformation. > > Priceless. > > > -- > Juha Saarinen > _______________________________________________ > Nznog mailing list > Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > >

1 0

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Richard Parkinson 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

Accept for a spelling error or two. :) -----Original Message----- From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2003 3:44 p.m. Cc: NZNOG Subject: RE: [nznog] APE Peering On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Richard Parkinson wrote: > I can assure you the bandwidth offered by Net4U in that "distributed" > email is legitimate, and I should warn you that continued accusations > and alligations are a direct attack against me and my company, which > left Net4U operating legally and above board, and there is no > justification for this blatant deformation. Priceless. -- Juha Saarinen _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

dnis prefix stripping
by Mark Frater 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

Anyone know how to strip DNIS prefixes on a Lucent TNT? Mark

1 0

More Sahil spam
by Michael Hallager 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

This was contained in a spam/UCE email received from Sahil last week. Why I am on his mailing list, I don't know. I don't deal with him. He has not responded to my email questioing the hypocrisy. Uncharged Users: ---------------- It has come to our attention that there may be a very small number of users who have slipped through the cracks so to speak, either by devious and deliberate means, or otherwise, and are not paying for the service they have been using. This is known as Fraud! If you are one of those users who have not been paying for the service that you have been using, this is your chance to come forward before we take action. There will be an amnesty period of 7 days (until the 1st of July) for such users to come forward and pay last months, and next months usage, and join the ranks of our regular customers. Failure to do so by the 1st of July will result in fraud charges laid against the Telecom account holders responsible for the unlawful Jetstream connection to Net4U. We will also back date all charges associated to the unlawful use of our services, and pursue these in court if necessary. Sorry for the harsh news everyone. Lets move onto some better news.....

2 1

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Steve Phillips 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

At 13:59 3/07/2003, Seeby Woodhouse wrote: >I guess that Sahil finally decided that the dust had settled enough that >he could start selling off some of his stolen bandwidth I noticed the costs were rather below the market rates from a number of players in the market that _do_ actually sell bandwidth internationally.. Maybe he's found another way around paying the carriers for their services.. ? one wonders if it all hinges upon him getting peering partners at APE and WIX.. does anyone actually trust net4u enough to peer with them.. ? -- Steve.

1 0

RE: [nznog] APE Peering
by Seeby Woodhouse 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

I guess that Sahil finally decided that the dust had settled enough that he could start selling off some of his stolen bandwidth - perhaps he's been hoarding up all the ill-gotten bits and bytes in a big cache, and now he wants to release it to the world at a fantastically discounted rate! :-) In case you missed the original Net4u story about this, here are some links. http://www.reseller.co.nz/Reseller/Reseller.nsf/0/86256ABD006E93FCCC256C F4001F2C03?OpenDocument http://www.computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/0/9624CB39A4EE23A0CC256CF5001 1DB4F?opendocument http://www.aardvark.co.nz/daily/2003/0327.shtml Cheers Seeby Woodhouse Managing Director Orcon Internet Limited - www.orcon.net.nz ____________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sahil Gupta - NET4U LIMITED" <sgupta(a)net4u.co.nz> To: <soa(a)wise.net.nz> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: ATTN: Systems Administrator / Management > Hello there, > I would like to introduce Net4U Limited to you as an alternative bandwidth > wholesaler. > > We currently have a large network around New Zealand. We currently supply > 5 other ISP's in New Zealand with Bandwidth and supply our own customer > base with bandwidth for Dialup, ADSL, Wireless, Frame-Relay, ATM, Fiber, > Ethernet. > > We connect to many providers around New Zealand and are also a peer on the > Auckland Peering Exchange (www.ape.net.nz) > > Currently I can offer you these prices for International Bandwidth: > 64k - 2048k = $2000+GST (per megabit) > 2048k - 4096k = $1800+GST (per megabit) > 4096k - 10240k = $1600+GST (per megabit) > 10240k = POA. > > We can deliver using several methods as I've outlined above and can also > take care of transporting your existing I.P. Address ranges supplied to > you by your current provider to us. > > Above all, we can also deliver Domestic / International Traffic via a BGP > Feed on 2 Different PVC's. > > Please let me know what you think of our offer. > > Regards, > > Sahil Gupta > Senior Account Manager > NET4U LIMITED > > Phone: 0508-263-848 > Fax: 07-8582659 > Mobile: 029-366-6375

1 0

Anyone want 2U cases (again) ?
by Mark Frater 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

Hi List, I'm ordering some more 2U cases from Taiwan and wondered if others were interested in buying some aswell to reduce the shipping cost per unit. ( If I just order a couple, the airfreight cost is as much as the cases!) The cases are 2U 19" wide by (only) 19" deep cases from Taiwan direct from manufacturer. These shallow cases are ideal for 600mm deep cabinets. They cases take standard ATX mobo. We have deployed both P4 and Athlon boards in these cases already and they have been fine. They will take up to 4 internal disks, floppy and CDRom. Here is a PDF cad drawing. http://www.quicksilver.net.nz/272-dia.pdf. Made by Comix International. $US200 for case, 400W PSU and 3xPCI Riser card. PLUS freight, gst and handling. Spare PSUs and mounting rails are also available. 2. 400W ATX Slim type power supply US$70.00 3. 22" Sliding rails US$25.00 4. 20" Sliding rails US$22.00 Total cost worked out at under NZ$550/case last time after shipping, customs charges and GST were added. Realistically, about 4-5 weeks delivery ( ie 1 week to get deposits, 1-2 week for Comix to make order, 1 week for airfreight, 1 week for NZcustoms clearance. Pickup from Quicksilver Internet, Textile Centre, Kenwyn St, Parnell, or for a small fee we could arrange for a courier from here. I'd like to get a deposit of (say) NZ$400 per case off people before placing the order. Make out cheques to Mercury Telecommunications Ltd and send to: Attn: Mark Frater, Mercury Telecommunications Ltd P.O.Box 99856 New Market Contact me off list if you are interested. Mark Frater Quicksilver Internet ph 9160300

1 0

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

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. NZNOG held a face to face gathering as part of the UniForum NZ conference in 2002, and is to do the same again from 10-12 July this year. That's next week. See http://www.uniforum.org.nz/conference_2003/conference.html for details. If you're going - and you are, aren't you? - you need to register NOW. NZNOG doesn't hold other national face to face meetings, but see http://thursdaynightcurry.com/ if you live in or near Wellington or Auckland. 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 rather than by most customers. Auckland Peering Exchange See http://www.ape.net.nz/ for details of the Auckland Peering Exchange and those connected there. About This Mailing List This list has around 480 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. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Alcatel NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations, nor the administrator, is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. 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/archives/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 administrator remains happy to assist the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should any complaint be laid with that office. 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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Frank March 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Electric fences are a problem with POTS when they are poorly designed and maintained. The major problem with ADSL in rural areas is the distance from the nearest enabled exchange - only a relatively small number of rural people are within the 5-7 km distance that ADSL will reach. It is likely that wireless technologies will be necessary to reach anyone more than this distance for an exchange and for some satellite will be the only practical solution. According to Fonterra, there could be as many as 5,000 farms (probably not dairy farms) in this category. --- Frank March Senior Specialist Adviser, IT Policy Group (and member of the PROBE project team) Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Phone (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax (+64 4) 474 2659; Mobile (+64) 21 042 9205 -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Kerr [mailto:cameron.kerr(a)paradise.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:35 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 11:20:32PM +1200, Lin Nah wrote: > Some of the target audience in the groups above tend to live in > rural areas and it is a challenge for them to get a 56k dialup > connection going (without worrying about line quality, electric > fences etc) let alone worry about high speed internet. Hence the > need for Project Probe. That raises an interesting question. If a primary problem with POTS is with electric fences creating a large amount of interference, how on earth is ADSL going to fare??? Surely its higher frequencies would be even more messed up. Or would they use wireless for people in that position? _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog http://www.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.

1 0

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Michael Sutton 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Over 500 clients of Xtra voluntarily registered and received Radio New Zealand and BBC World Live as Multicast on Telecoms dial up service for 3 years from 1998. I attended and observed when Telecom engineers enabled the same service via adsl in Wellington as multicast sourced from my servers in Akl in 2000. If i was in the Ministry of Health and needed to distribute 3,000 * 10m bytes PDF document from my source server to all distribution points within 60 minutes (3GigaBytes) no New Zealand network can do it. The distribution server and network would fail. If I used multicast and have a 256kbit multicast injection source the upload to all 3000 GPs will be complete in less than 10 minutes. The clients will still be billed for 3 gigabytes if they were being changed for local traffic and the rest of the national network would remain stable, especially for servers colocated with the originating server. If future spam blocking uses a signature system, multicast would enable this information to be distributed to all enterprise mail servers instantly and efficiently using multicast distribution... If I was implementing Maori Television and Youth Radio I would use multicast for distribution of the network transmission to reach 150 National distribution points where I would convert the multicast program for terrestrial transmission and in one step have positively changed the operational budget as well as reduced complexity of distribution. Yes I would still have to pay for each clients data charges... If I ran Correspondence School I would use multicast... If I was the TAB I would use it... I could give you 20 project scenarios that unicast can not implement in the real world. All unicast can do in every application is show the prototype concept - scale-up can not occur without multicast... This is really an Interconnect issue: customers should have network access to inject on a case by case situation... It is not up to the networks to be arbitrarily prohibiting this protocol... Please name another network protocol that could make such a difference and which is disabled ... Its like saying that the protocol extensions enabling mobile TXT messaging should have been blocked until each application was identified. I thought that Telecom, Telstra etc stopped "telling" customers what are permissible applications... Telecom and Telstra etc are supposed to implement enabling technologies which can be used by its customers who know there own current and future applications... In my professional opinion if the Boards of both these organisations understood the damage that this decision does to their clients network application capabilities, all of those executives involved would be gone. New Zealand has never had a real Internet as far as I am concerned due to this network management decision. Multicast is a broadcast service and without it the network remains unicast spaghetti, like pieces of string with empty cans of W* Baked Beans on each end... If Probe does not require multicast as a mandatory network service then the future of that service will be DOA... Due to public obfuscation of the process I don't know what they thought they required anyway. My final view on this is; turn it on and make the interconnect arrangements necessary for peering at wix and ape before one or more customers takes this to the Commissioner as an interconnect issue. Michael Sutton +64 4 4759235 www.awacs.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: Donald Neal [mailto:Donald.Neal(a)telecom.co.nz] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:41 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand My own opinion - and I must stress that it is just my opinion - is that this will be exactly Telecom's attitude. To change the answer you'd need to change the question. If you say "Look, to provide new service X which your customers will want, you need to enable IP multicasting", that's a different issue. But that would require the identification of service X. - Donald Neal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- "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." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

4 3

Test the Nation, Request (REPOST)
by Chris O'Donoghue 29 Jun '03

29 Jun '03

Sorry had to repost from home email Hi all, We (TVNZ) are running a programme tonight that _may_ attract considerable audience online. To try and make things run smoothly and lower calls to our and your call centres, can those of you that aggressively cache make sure you don't cache the following URL http://ttndata.nzoom.com/batches/data.xml This is the XML data that defines the current batch of questions. It will change in content frequently between 19:30 and midnight Ta Chris Chris ODonoghue Technology Manager Online & Digital TVNZ codonoghue(a)tvnz.co.nz

1 0

Test the Nation, request
by Chris O'Donoghue 29 Jun '03

29 Jun '03

Hi all, We (TVNZ) are running a programme tonight that _may_ attract considerable audience online. To try and make things run smoothly and lower calls to our and your call centres, can those of you that aggressively cache make sure you don't cache the following URL http://ttndata.nzoom.com/batches/data.xml This is the XML data that defines the current batch of questions. It will change in content frequently between 19:30 and midnight Ta Chris Chris O'Donoghue Technology Manager Online & Digital TVNZ ================================================================ CAUTION: This e-mail and any attachment(s) contains information that is intended to be read only by the named recipient(s). It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. Do not use any information contained in it. ================================================================ For more information on nzoom.com, visit us online at http://www.nzoom.com ================================================================

1 0

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Ewen McNeill 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

In message <5.2.0.9.0.20030627141054.038683c0(a)pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Naylor writes: >>[Multicast] >Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can >really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is >like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless. Even aside from the live situation you mention (eg, LOTR last year), general overseas experience with video-on-demand has shown that people really only want (to pay for) video-soon-after-demanded. Eg, for a 1-2 hour thing, having to wait, say, 2-5 minutes for it to start isn't a big deal. Even waiting 1 minute for a 10 minute thing isn't _that big a deal. Which means that for popular stuff that is "on demand" it might not be enough to have one channel with it, where the wait time is, say, 15 minutes for it to cycle around -- but it might be fine to have 10-20 channels, suitably staggered, where the wait time was 1-2 minutes. (Add channels to reduce the wait time.) Especially if there was some nice front end whereby people could find out which channel would be showing their thing starting next, and tune into that one. And it's much easier to scale channels-starting-every-minute (say) than it is to scale each-stream-is-unicast-with-its-own-start-point. (Particularly if you don't both starting/continuing the channels if there's nobody receiving it after a few minutes -- that requires some feedback outside multicast, but wouldn't be hard to do with a suitable client application and, say, UDP upstream responses every minute or so.) >back to streaming live and did the LOTR premiere last year with 10,000 >clients. Its a lot of fun and didn't really stress much other than a few ISPs. At least once some traction was made on the urgent call for more peering from the source point to the main sink points. But multicast fully deployed would definitely have helped a lot there. Ewen

3 2

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Donald Neal 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

> From: Simon Lyall [mailto:simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2003 17:46 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Craig Whitmore wrote: > > But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use > > them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream > > Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't > see anything) > > I'm sure there would be a few people that would jump through > the hoops to > get a non-commercial broadcast arrangement with APRA ( I > think one person > on this list has something along these lines) if they could multicast > their musical tastes to DSL people. Is anyone able to point me at some such people? - Donald Neal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Donald Neal 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

> From: Michael Sutton [mailto:michael.sutton(a)awacs.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 14:55 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Cc: Donald Neal > Subject: RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand > > > Over 500 clients of Xtra voluntarily registered and received > Radio New Zealand and BBC World Live as Multicast on Telecoms > dial up service for 3 years from 1998. > > I attended and observed when Telecom engineers enabled the > same service via adsl in Wellington as multicast sourced from > my servers in Akl in 2000. > > If [...] What I'm looking for is someone who has _today_ content which they want to distribute where a) the availability of IP multicasting could reasonably be expected to make some difference to customer experience/network load, and b) the level of demand for this content can reasonably be expected to be such that either extra revenue for someone would come from making that content available OR its availability can reasonably be expected to increase the uptake of broadband service. The first of these is actually a harder test than it looks, given that there are other ways of doing point to multipoint comunication than unvarnished IP unicast or multicast. (The classic way to allow download of big documents many times is with proxy caching, to take just one example.) - Donald Neal All opinions my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand <<< CORRECTION >>>
by Michael Sutton 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

Correction to my earlier post: Para 3 Please read 30 gigabytes in 60 minutes. I wrote 3 gigabytes... M -----Original Message----- From: Michael Sutton [mailto:michael.sutton(a)awacs.co.nz] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 02:55 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand <snip> If i was in the Ministry of Health and needed to distribute 3,000 * 10m bytes PDF document from my source server to all distribution points within 60 minutes (30 GigaBytes) no New Zealand network can do it. The distribution server and network would fail. If I used multicast and have a 256kbit multicast injection source the upload to all 3000 GPs will be complete in less than 10 minutes. The clients will still be billed for 30 gigabytes if they were being changed for local traffic and the rest of the national network would remain stable, especially for servers colocated with the originating server. <snip>

1 0

Sobig.MM infected users?
by Neil Gardner 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

Hi guys, (specifially those at IHUG) any chance someone can do something about this user on IHUGs ADSL system? - (203-118-165-45.adsl.ihug.co.nz) This post is in desperation after the correct procedure for reporting this was followed twice with IHUG and no-one did anything about it except send a request for the full email which was given, and then sent me back a totally blank reply. IHUGs Helpdesk were apologetic, but said that no-one could do anything about it except between the hours of midnight and 8am (!!!!) Anyway, it wouldn't normally be an urgent issue, but the poor sucker that's infected has just subscribed to about 5 more lists that I'm on, as well as a lot of not so IT literate users, so he's going to catch a few of them... As an aside, what do most ISPs do if they find someone is infected and is sending out stuff lke this? (Yes, those dates in the email below are old - that's from the first bunch of emails he sent out when I first complained - and yes, I have checked the IP is still the same as of about 20 minutes ago) Cheers - Neil G > Return-Path: <big(a)boss.com> > Delivered-To: moderator for ultimate(a)nzfda.org.nz > Received: (qmail 32200 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 19:47:03 > -0000 > Received: from 203-118-165-45.adsl.ihug.co.nz (HELO MCNEILLJ-JLG772) > (203.118.165.45) > by 202-0-37-249.cable.paradise.net.nz with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 19:47:03 > -0000 > From: <big(a)boss.com> > To: <ultimate(a)nzfda.org.nz> > Subject: Re: Movies > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 7:47:09 +1200 > Importance: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_0001EFBA"

2 1

Sobig.MM infected users?
by nznog＠neilnz.com 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

Hi guys, (specifially those at IHUG) any chance someone can do something about this user on IHUGs ADSL system? - (203-118-165-45.adsl.ihug.co.nz) This post is in desperation after the correct procedure for reporting this was followed twice with IHUG and no-one did anything about it except send a request for the full email which was given, and then sent me back a totally blank reply. IHUGs Helpdesk were apologetic, but said that no-one could do anything about it except between the hours of midnight and 8am (!!!!) Anyway, it wouldn't normally be an urgent issue, but the poor sucker that's infected has just subscribed to about 5 more lists that I'm on, as well as a lot of not so IT literate users, so he's going to catch a few of them... As an aside, what do most ISPs do if they find someone is infected and is sending out stuff lke this? (Yes, those dates in the email below are old - that's from the first bunch of emails he sent out when I first complained - and yes, I have checked the IP is still the same as of about 20 minutes ago) Cheers - Neil G > Return-Path: <big(a)boss.com> > Delivered-To: moderator for ultimate(a)nzfda.org.nz > Received: (qmail 32200 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 19:47:03 > -0000 > Received: from 203-118-165-45.adsl.ihug.co.nz (HELO MCNEILLJ-JLG772) > (203.118.165.45) > by 202-0-37-249.cable.paradise.net.nz with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 19:47:03 > -0000 > From: <big(a)boss.com> > To: <ultimate(a)nzfda.org.nz> > Subject: Re: Movies > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 7:47:09 +1200 > Importance: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_0001EFBA"

1 0

Multicast status in New Zealand
by Cameron Kerr 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

Hello, I work as a teaching fellow in Telecommunications, teaching small-time network management and network programming. I am currently trying to learn more about multicast (IPv4 now, v6 later), in preparation for teaching multicast programming half way through the second semester. However, in the course we won't be connected to the internet, so I'm using my own home network to advance my understanding. I have a few questions about the current state of affairs wrt ISPs and content in New Zealand. 1) What broadband (and dial-up, for completeness) ISPs are multicast capable/friendly? Particularly Orcon, since our flat has just moved there. 2) What is needed to activate it at the users end (anything they need to do with mbone etc), or does the ISP deal with that? 3) Is there much in the way of content available? 4) Are there issues with NAT??? (I have a Nokia M1122 doing NAT, with Linux router/firewall behind it) Or alternatively, is there any documentation that answers these questions in the New Zealand environment. (If not, I'd be willing to help write/test.) Thank you all. -- Cameron Kerr cameron.kerr(a)paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/ Empowered by Perl!

8 16

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Richard Naylor 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

At 01:48 p.m. 27/06/2003 +1200, David Robb wrote: <snip> >Overseas content proved to be largely boring, lossy, and not worth getting >back when I played with it at ihug. Now this might have changed since >then, but I suspect that locally generated content is still the way to go. I used to be able to get a copyright clearance out of TVNZ for streaming provided I had a minder present. That stopped some years ago. So now I create my own content. Its still boring, but thats the subject matter. I get round the lossy issues with bandwidth and better codecs. Its a very niche business but I make money. More in the talk at Uniforum. > > Then you have to get it to the users,(The hard part). Customers would have > > to run Tunnels to the ISP (as Telecom Jetstream/Jetstart/Dialup) network > >Running many tunnels defeats some of the purpose of multicast, since >you're then back to multiple streams through the core of your network. >Unless of course you can distribute the tunnel endpoints out to close to >your customers, but then you may as well just use unicast and relay it. Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless. But I have gone back to streaming live and did the LOTR premiere last year with 10,000 clients. Its a lot of fun and didn't really stress much other than a few ISPs. The streaming business generally just uses unicast as getting network wide multicast is impossible. HOWEVER, Access Grids require multicast and will be running shortly (Cpus arrive monday). But I will tunnel the multicast to try and have a quiet life. Tunnels are the easy way out. The Mbone tools haven't kept up with codec development and aren't great quality. On the other hand divx/mp4 gives dvd quality at 800kbps which isn't hard to deliver. I've even got 300kbyte files going onto cell phones with very good feedback. Codecs certainly have got better. So my input is that the market (ie the viewers) want VOD and that doesn't need multicast. rich

1 0

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Nathan Ward 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

> This the thing that I find hard to understand. Multicast to me seems like > a cost reduction strategy rather than a revenue improvement one.....Does > no one want to reduce costs? Or is the easier path to profit through > increased revenue.... Sure, it reduces costs, but, who pays to get the content in? The ISP. How do they pass that cost on to thier customers fairly? IMO the only way to fairly do it is to watch your IGMP and see who is listening to what, and devide the costs up nicely. However, the cost per customer will differ per stream and also per minute. Did I mention the fact that you now have to account per multicast group and keep track of IGMP on all your routers... And what about in NZ where we have one or 2 main ISPs, and many smaller ISPs hanging off them. The cost that the smaller ISP gets charged by the larger ISP changes all the time now too... as a smaller ISP, try factor that into your billing system. Nathan Ward

1 0

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Jamie Baddeley 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

"..I remember at uniforum it was mentioned that the hold up on multicast in NZ (read: Telecom ADSL and the like), was that it was hard to charge for.." This the thing that I find hard to understand. Multicast to me seems like a cost reduction strategy rather than a revenue improvement one.....Does no one want to reduce costs? Or is the easier path to profit through increased revenue.... sigh. jamie >>> Nathan Ward <nward(a)esphion.com> 06/27 12:45 PM >>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:22:49 +1200, Cameron Kerr <cameron.kerr(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Judging by the responses I recieved, I'm led to believe that no ISPs > currently support multicast. > > I'm forced then to consider the MBone. However there is very little in > the way of instructions for connecting to the mbone (all the > instructions say is to start mrouted). However, where does the other > endpoint for the tunnel go? Is anyone here attached to the MBone? Are > there any places you can connect to (preferably in NZ) for free? > > I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, instead, the > first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public > will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same > towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't > provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think? > > Thanks for your answers. DISCLAIMER: This email is what I recall, it may be completely incorrect "The mbone is dead" - Greg Shepherd, Uniforum 2002. The mbone was a test network. What is left of it now is more of an informal thing. Lots of people use multicast internally. I remember at uniforum it was mentioned that the hold up on multicast in NZ (read: Telecom ADSL and the like), was that it was hard to charge for. -- Nathan Ward Esphion Ltd. _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Donald Neal 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

> From: Cameron Kerr [mailto:cameron.kerr(a)paradise.net.nz] > Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 12:23 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand [...] > I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, > instead, the > first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public > will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same > towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't > provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think? My own opinion - and I must stress that it is just my opinion - is that this will be exactly Telecom's attitude. To change the answer you'd need to change the question. If you say "Look, to provide new service X which your customers will want, you need to enable IP multicasting", that's a different issue. But that would require the identification of service X. - Donald Neal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Orcon Internet Prefix List Update (2003-6-26)
by Craig Whitmore 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

For all those peering with Orcon Internet (AS17746) please update your Prefix Lists/BGP to allow the Following Network(s) ip prefix-list orcon-national permit 202.36.16.0/21 le 24 ip prefix-list orcon-national permit 202.36.24.0/22 le 24 These will be coming from AS23838 behind AS17746 if you do any AS filtering as well. Thanks Craig Whitmore Systems Administrator Orcon Internet http://www.orcon.net.nz

1 0

Server Co-location
by Aaron Martin 25 Jun '03

25 Jun '03

Anyone in Hawkes Bay want to house a server for one of my clients, in return for my client hosting one of your servers? Server is just for MX / DNS backup.

1 0

Re: [nznog] co-location query
by Colin Templeman 25 Jun '03

25 Jun '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I do know that Synergy (Queens Wharf) have plenty of space available in their custom server room. Probably worth an enquiry. <SNIP> | HI there, | | Does anyone know of companies in Wellington with spare machine room that they rent | out? I'm looking for somewhere to set up a few machines without incurring the cost of | building a whole machine room. | | Thanks in advance, | -Rebecca Piatek | | ------------------------------ - -- Regards, Colin Templeman At home, Wellington, New Zealand. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE++kpq1TWUpqMFtqoRAnoRAJsFSik2BK9p8FMmrZyUuK/L1uxq/wCeJqWN S1bce8RzkRik8QSylYqJO9Q= =E+Ox -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

co-location query
by rebecca.piatek＠paradise.net.nz 24 Jun '03

24 Jun '03

HI there, Does anyone know of companies in Wellington with spare machine room that they rent out? I'm looking for somewhere to set up a few machines without incurring the cost of building a whole machine room. Thanks in advance, -Rebecca Piatek

1 0

Spam spam spam spam ...
by David Farrar 14 Jun '03

14 Jun '03

I'm facilitating a session on spam at the InternetNZ Summit on Thursday, and am going to do a quick backgrounder on how big the problem is both overseas and in NZ, plus look at some potential solutions. I've got lots of overseas stats but would love to be able to include some more local stuff. If anyone on the list can easily find out and send to me and stats they have on spam and their ISP, it would be most welcome. The sort of stuff I'm after is: - No of spams received pre day/week/year - % of spam is of overall e-mail, by number and GB - Any cost estimates for your ISP either in direct costs such as bandwidth or indirect costs like % of helpdesk time - What spam filtering, if any, you offer. - Any significant problems with false positives using blacklists etc - what calibre bullets should be used to eliminate spammers :-) Ta DPF

1 0

ihug Updated Prefix list.
by Simon Lyall 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

If you are peering with ihug (AS7657) can you please update you filters to accept our advertisements for the following network: ip prefix-list ihug-networks permit 202.46.160.0/24 Our current Prefix list can be obtained from: http://www.ihug.net/ihug-prefix-list -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

1 0

"Borrowed" /16 bought for $500
by Juha Saarinen 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5654 -- Juha Saarinen

1 0

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 09 Jun '03

09 Jun '03

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. NZNOG held a face to face gathering as part of the UniForum NZ conference in 2002, and is to do the same again from 10-12 July this year. See http://www.uniforum.org.nz/conference 2003/conference.html for details. If you're going - and you are, aren't you? - it's time to get on with registering. NZNOG doesn't hold other national face to face meetings, but see http://thursdaynightcurry.com/ if you live in or near Wellington or Auckland. 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 rather than by most customers. Auckland Peering Exchange See http://www.ape.net.nz/ for details of the Auckland Peering Exchange and those connected there. About This Mailing List This list has around 480 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. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations, nor the administrator, is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. 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/archives/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 administrator remains happy to assist the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should any complaint be laid with that office. 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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Orcon Internet Prefix List Update (2003-6-7)
by Craig Whitmore 06 Jun '03

06 Jun '03

For all those peering with Orcon Internet (AS17746) please update your Prefix Lists/BGP to allow the Following Network(s) ip prefix-list orcon-national permit 203.99.0.0/19 le 24 Thanks Craig Whitmore Systems Administrator Orcon Internet http://www.orcon.net.nz

1 0

SRS
by Nick Griffin 06 Jun '03

06 Jun '03

SRS and the whois was unavailable this morning as a result of a Citylink outage. SRS came back onstream at around 10:10am. cheers Nick -- Nick Griffin Registry Manager .nz Registry Services PO Box 24361 Wellington New Zealand e nick.griffin(a)nzrs.net.nz p + 64 4 931 6977 m + 64 21 505 229 f + 64 4 931 6979 w www.nzrs.net.nz

1 0

SRS
by Tim John 06 Jun '03

06 Jun '03

Anyone having difficulty connecting to the SRS this morning. I'm not getting there with on 'whois.srs.net.nz' Tim DISCLAIMER: The content of this email is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the individual or entity named above. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that the use, distribution and publication of the above information is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact Domainz by returning the email and destroying the original. Thank you.

2 1

Re: [nznog] W32/Bugbear-B
by Matthew Poole 05 Jun '03

05 Jun '03

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:49:37 +1200, Ewen McNeill <ewen(a)naos.co.nz> wrote : > In message <003d01c32bba$88f42940$fd00a8c0(a)morpheus>, "Matthew G Brown" writes: *SNIP* > list at the nai.com URL that Dan Clark gave). Curiously anz.com.au is > there, but anz.co.nz is not, and westpac.com.au is there but > westpac.co.nz is not. > Not particularly curious when you consider the heavy consolidation that both ANZ and Westpac have recently done to move their operations across the Tasman. From experience I know that ANZ's 'net banking site is based in Aus (https://www.anz.com) and would imagine that WPT have probably done the same thing. If there's no secure traffic from the .co.nz domains, will BugBear even pay attention to them? > Obviously it's trying to pretend to be "The Bank" (almost all the > domains in its internal list seem banking related) despite the fact that > almost all banks have "webmail" systems rather than sending actual > email. > I used to hate ANZ's webmail system, until I reflected on the fact that their servers are considerably more secure than my home network - And they've definitely got a better chance of picking up an intrusion and doing something to the instigator. -- Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand

1 0

Re: [nznog] W32/Bugbear-B
by Ewen McNeill 05 Jun '03

05 Jun '03

In message <003d01c32bba$88f42940$fd00a8c0(a)morpheus>, "Matthew G Brown" writes: >Dan Clark wrote: >>http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_100358.htm > >Interesting, It has the domains asbbank.co.nz bankdirect.co.nz bnz.co.nz >and trustbank.co.nz as its sending domains. Ive had several people open >this already with the bankdirect.co.nz domain suffix. The "nz" bank domains appear to be: asbbank.co.nz bankdirect.co.nz bnz.co.nz nationalbank.co.nz trustbank.co.nz (obtained by grepping for "nz$" in a suitable transformed copy of the list at the nai.com URL that Dan Clark gave). Curiously anz.com.au is there, but anz.co.nz is not, and westpac.com.au is there but westpac.co.nz is not. Obviously it's trying to pretend to be "The Bank" (almost all the domains in its internal list seem banking related) despite the fact that almost all banks have "webmail" systems rather than sending actual email. Ewen

1 0

RE: [nznog] The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP addresses
by Matthew Lamb 05 Jun '03

05 Jun '03

I wont be greedy, ill just take 10 or so, if you can spare them :-) Matt On Thu, 29 May 2003 11:39:11 +1200, "Brett Healy" <fork(a)btw.co.nz> wrote : > ill have it.. ill give it a good home. promise :D > > > Regards, > Brett Healy, > BTW Navigation Systems Ltd > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerry Thompson [mailto:kez-nznog(a)crypt.gen.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 11:18 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [nznog] The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP > addresses > > > David Robb said: > > > > And just how much of that space is actually in use? > > > > And sometimes I wonder how much of the APNIC/NZ space is actually used as > well. > Years ago I registered a /22 off Netgate for a company, who never used it > and it stayed registered to my APNIC handle. I'm still wondering what to > do with it. And there's plenty of other such blocks out there that are > forgotten and unused. > > Kerry > > > -- > Kerry Thompson, CCNA CISSP > Information Systems Security Consultant > http://www.crypt.gen.nz > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nznog mailing list > Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > _______________________________________________ > Nznog mailing list > Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > >

2 1

W32/Bugbear-B
by Pipes Cuchifrito 05 Jun '03

05 Jun '03

Good Morning, Does anyone have any initial information on this virus? Are we looking downt he barrel of another network slow down? (another sleepless weekend?) Cheers, Pipes Rapturesecurity.com

3 3

Xtra Abuse
by Philip D'Ath 05 Jun '03

05 Jun '03

Isn't this typical. I try to report SPAM to Xtra's abuse account, and get an error message back saying that they have exceeded their own quota limit! --- This is a system generated message. Please DO NOT REPLY. Your message was not delivered for the following reason: The user(s) account is temporarily over quota. <responses(a)xtra.co.nz> For more information on why this message wasn't delivered, and an explanation of other common mail delivery errors, visit our Web site at: http://xtra.co.nz/maildelivery Kind regards. The Xtra Messaging Team

2 1

Could a mail admin from Xtra please contact me?
by Juha Saarinen 04 Jun '03

04 Jun '03

Apologies for this message, but I don't have a contact address for anyone there. -- Juha Saarinen

1 0

geek.nz approved in interim decision
by DPF 31 May '03

31 May '03

Many here will be pleased/interested to hear that in a unanimous 14-0 vote the InternetNZ Council voted in favour of creating geek.nz as the 12th 2LD for .nz. The interim decision is subject to further submissions, along with discussion of implementation details. A final decision will be taken at the next Council meeting in early July. DPF -- E-mail: david(a)farrar.com ICQ: 29964527 MSN: dpf666(a)hotmail.com

1 0

Update to the bogon route-server project
by Rob Thomas 29 May '03

29 May '03

Hi, NZNOG folk. We're pleased to announce the release of version 1.7 of the Bogon Route-Server Project. The major change in release 1.7 is the addition of three more bogon route-servers to the bogon route-server project, for a total of four. These are all managed by Team Cymru, and provide additional redundancy for the project. All of the bogon route-servers announce the same bogon prefixes and use the same ASN and community. Folks are free to peer with as many as they like, though we recommend a minimum of two. Peering with the bogon route-servers is *FREE*, though you are welcome to buy a cup of coffee for Rob at the SLC NANOG if you feel kindly. :) You can read more about the project here: <http://www.cymru.com/BGP/bogon-rs.html> You can read more about bogon filtering and tracking here: <http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/> Thanks! Rob, for Team Cymru. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);

1 0

The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP addresses
by Juha Saarinen 28 May '03

28 May '03

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-1010666.html?tag=fdfeed I guess this means Australia/NZ too. Seems Joe's missive about IPv6 was quite prescient. -- Juha Saarinen

7 8

Re: [nznog] The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP addresses
by Ewen McNeill 28 May '03

28 May '03

In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0305291823140.17378-100000(a)boggle.ihug.co.nz>, Simon L yall writes: >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Joe Abley wrote: >> So, only 14% of the available IPv4 address space had been assigned to >> RIRs at the time of that presentation. > >Which is fairly meaningless since half those 202 are instead delegated >to Large Organisations, Various Registries etc. For sure. But if push comes to shove IANA can talk quietly (perhaps in the "talk quietly and carry a big stick" sense) to some of those Large Organisations and see if they couldn't perhaps manage with somewhat less than 2**24 addresses. >As the cost of putting a full IP stack and connection drops to only a >couple of dollars or less all sorts of random things will start having >them. And before you say NAT remember that the power company will want to >directly access your meter and hotwater cylinder, your car company the >car, your whiteware company the fridge etc. Did I mention the games >console? For many of those it could easily enough be done with NAT. It seems to me that "phoning home" isn't, inheriently, any more problematic than being able to interogate the devices remotely for the vendor. And it's probably somewhat preferable for the customer too. (Even if everything was globally routable, would you want Joe Random Company connecting in to arbitrary devices your network? This isn't your grandmother's Internet any longer. Sure you can use a firewall. You've just moved the problem to being one of ensuring a million or so firewalls are properly maintained. If I were a vendor, I'd take "phoning home".) >When stuff like that comes along we really want them to be deployed on a >nice ipv6 internet rather than have to suddenly switch cause demand >increases by a factor of 10 overnight. It would be nice to have $1,000,000 tomorrow too. I don't think either of them will happen.[0] Even at the current ease of use the cost/benefit ratio for converting to IPv6 is too low for (m)any(one) to put effort into doing so. It'll only be when there's a whole lot more benefit (eg, lots of IPv6-only services, or stuff which cannot be done with IPv4+NAT) or a lot less effort (works out of the box without even thinking about it, and has for years) that'll actually happen. Especially since we've had the better part of 10 years for everyone to get pretty good at designing IPv4+NAT compatible protocols and networks, thus greatly mitigating the perceived benefit of switching. Ewen [0] Although should someone wish to give me $1,000,000 tomorrow, I'd be willing to look suitably surprised on camera.

1 0